MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611066518 · doi:10.5210/ojphi.v9i1.7715

Estimating spatial patterning of dietary behaviors using grocery transaction data

2017· article· en· W2611066518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hirosi Mamiya, Erica E. M. Moodie, David L. Buckeridge

Bibliographic record

VenueOnline Journal of Public Health Informatics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransaction dataMetropolitan areaSample (material)CensusMarketingMarket basketBusinessGeographyDirect marketingDatabase transactionAdvertisingEnvironmental healthMedicineComputer scienceEconomicsPopulationDatabase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ObjectiveTo demonstrate a method for estimating neighborhood foodselection with secondary use of digital marketing data; grocerytransaction records and retail business registry.IntroductionUnhealthy diet is becoming the most important preventablecause of chronic disease burden (1). Dietary patterns vary acrossneighborhoods as a function of policy, marketing, social support,economy, and the commercial food environment (2). Assessmentof community-specific response to these socio-ecological factorsis critical for the development and evaluation policy interventionsand identification of nutrition inequality. Mass administration ofdietary surveys is impractical and prohibitory expensive, and surveystypically fail to address variation of food selection at high geographicresolution. Marketing companies such as the Nielsen cooperationcontinuously collect and centralize scanned grocery transactionrecords from a geographically representative sample of retail foodoutlets to guide product promotions. These data can be harnessed todevelop a model for the demand of specific foods using store andneighborhood attributes, providing a rich and detailed picture of the“foodscape” in an urban environment. In this study, we generated aspatial profile of food selection from estimated sales in food outletsin the Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) of Montreal, Canada,using regular carbonated soft drinks (i.e. non-diet soda) as an initialexample.MethodsFrom the Nielsen cooperation, we obtained weekly grocerytransaction data generated by a sample of 86 grocery stores and 42pharmacies in the Montreal CMA in 2012. Extracted store-specificsoda sales were standardized to a single serving size (240ml) andaveraged across 52 weeks, resulting in 128 data points. Using linearregression, natural log-transformed soda sales were modelled as afunction of store type (grocery vs. pharmacies), chain identificationcode and socio-demographic attributes of store neighborhood, whichare median family income, proportion of individuals who receivedpost-secondary diplomas, and population density as measured by the2011 Canadian Household Survey. Selection of the predictors andfirst-order interaction terms was guided by the minimization of themean squared error using 10-fold cross-validation. The final modelwas applied to all operating chain grocery stores and pharmacies in2012 (n=980) recorded in a comprehensive and commonly availablebusiness establishment database. The resulting predicted store-specific weekly average soda sales was spatially interpolated toprovide a graphical representation of the soda sales (representing anunhealthy foodscape) across the Montreal CMA.ResultsFigure 2 demonstrates the spatial distribution of the predicted sodasales in the Montreal CMA.ConclusionsThe current lack of neighborhood-level dietary surveillanceimpedes effective public health actions aimed at encouraging healthyfood selection and subsequent reduction of chronic illness. Ourmethod leverages existing grocery transaction data and store locationinformation to address the gap in population monitoring of nutritionstatus and urban foodscapes. Future applications of our methodologyto other store types (e.g. convenience stores) and food productsacross multiple time points (e.g. mouths and years) will permit acomprehensive, timely and automated assessment of dietary trends,identification of neighborhoods in special dietary needs, developmentof tailored community health promotions, and the measurement ofneighbourhood-specific response to nutrition policies and unhealthyfood advertising.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.212
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOnline Journal of Public Health InformaticsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207