MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611496956 · doi:10.1017/s1368980017000386

Comparing measured calcium and vitamin D intakes with perceptions of intake in Canadian young adults: insights for designing osteoporosis prevention education

2017· article· en· W2611496956 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alyson Holland, Tina Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisQualitative researchGerontologyPerceptionConfusionMedicineEnvironmental healthMicronutrientNutrition EducationVitamin D and neurologyPsychologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To identify the relationship between perceptions of Ca and vitamin D consumption and actual intakes to inform the design of osteoporosis prevention education. DESIGN: An FFQ was used to approximate usual monthly Ca and vitamin D intakes among a group of young Canadians. Qualitative interviews and a food card pile sort activity explored individuals' perceptions of nutrient intakes. The FFQ was used to assess nutrient adequacy for individual participants and the qualitative interviews and pile sort were analysed using thematic content analysis. SETTING: Hamilton, Canada. SUBJECTS: Sixty participants aged 17-30 years, representing varying levels of educational attainment. RESULTS: Seventy-eight per cent of young adults who consumed inadequate vitamin D perceived their intake as adequate, compared with 57 % for Ca. Thematic analysis revealed three major themes that contributed to young adults' understandings of intake: belief their diet was correct, absence of symptoms and confusion over nutrient sources. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of participants perceived themselves as consuming adequate amounts of Ca and vitamin D, when they were actually consuming inadequate amounts according to FFQ findings. These perceptions were related to low engagement in prevention activities. Prevention education must motivate young adults to question the adequacy of their micronutrient intakes and design tailored programmes that are geared to a young adult audience.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207