[Nutritional status in older adults beneficiaries of a social programme with food component implemented in the city of Cordoba. Year 2000].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The nutritional status in older aged persons is the resulting of their living conditions and health. The demographic growing of this part of population is a challenge to health professionals, to know which are the characteristics of the normality in this stage of life. OBJECTIVE: To know the nutritional status of the older aged persons beneficiaries of the ASOMA programme and identify from a qualitative focus, their food consumption standards. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Descriptive, co-relational and transversal field study. Universe: 10214 persons from three different food assistance programmes. Sampling method: aleatory stratified respecting the universe proportion resulting n = 162 from ASOMA programme. Equation: Chumlea's was used to check height-taking reference from knee height and BMI. TECHNIQUES: Observation and measurement (anthropometric) CONCLUSIONS: The group has been represented into 2/3 parts of women n:108 and the age category older-young persons, low education level, temporary incomes always under $200 monthly. One quarter of them still work. The food consumption standard is signed by three basic foods: bread, oil and sugar and a frequent consumption of rice and chicken. Cow-meat, three-kind vegetables, pasta and "A" fruits appear as less frequents. The 83.9% of older-persons have a monotonous diet (weekly consumption < or = 5 different foods) that belong to the ASOMA programme. The middle value for BMI was 27.4 for the entire group, SD 5.33. The 24.1% of de population were situated in BMI values status that indicate normal nutritional. Analyzing the values by sex, men values were all around the middle value of the group. Among the women the values showed more dispersion. The BMI for women (middle value 28.4 with SD 5.88) was higher than for men (middle value 25.9 with SD 3.60). It was found positive co relation between BMI and body fat percentage and negative for BMI and body water percentage. Therefore was founded a negative significant co relation between the body fat and body water percentages.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".