MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625838435 · doi:10.1111/tgis.12276

The interaction between individual, social and environmental factors and their influence on dietary intake among adults in Toronto

2017· article· en· W2625838435 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel Liadsky, Brian Ceh

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthMetropolitan areaGeographyPsychologyMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Health outcomes related to vegetable and fruit consumption are widely recognized in the literature. This study investigates how dietary intake is influenced by individual, social, and environmental factors in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area. The analysis and findings are based on data from the Canadian Community Health Survey which provides self‐reported vegetable and fruit intake from 6,513 adults in 2009‐2010. Food environment measures were constructed from commercial databases using kernel density estimates and network drive times. Spatial and multivariable techniques were used to determine the associations between diet, the food environment, and other health and socioeconomic factors. Particular emphasis was given to understanding the interaction between the food environment and socioeconomic position. Unexpectedly, supermarket density was found to have an inverse association with vegetable and fruit intake. Interaction terms for individuals with low income and reduced mobility produced different responses in men and women, confirming that the influence of the food environment is not uniform for all subgroups.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207