The relationship between health eating and overweight/obesity in Canada: cross‐sectional study using the CCHS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The relationship between Canada's Food Guide (CFG) adherence and overweight/obesity at the population level is unknown. Our objective was to explore the association between overweight/obesity and CFG adherence in Canada. Methods: Using 24-h dietary recall data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), we conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Canadians' consumption of four predefined food types from CFG (grain products, vegetables and fruit, milk and alternatives, meat and alternatives). Respondents aged 18 to 65 years with measured BMI were included. The total number of servings in each food group was compared with the number of recommended servings in CFG to determine adherence. Linear regression was used to explore the association between overweight/obesity and CFG adherence. Results: Participants who met the minimum servings in vegetables and fruit had a lower measured BMI. Also, participants who met the minimum servings in meat and alternatives had a higher measured BMI. These associations were observed for the sample as a whole and for those with overweight/obesity, and, for meat and alternatives, among women. Conclusion: There is evidence that following the CFG recommendation is associated with measured BMI, for some food groups. This relationship needs to be validated using longitudinal data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it