MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778371225 · doi:10.1080/09637486.2017.1412405

Sociodemographic associations of the dietary proportion of ultra-processed foods in First Nations peoples in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario

2017· article· en· W2778371225 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Malek Batal, Louise Johnson‐Down, Jean‐Claude Moubarac, Amy Ing, Karen Fediuk, Tonio Sadik, Hing Man Chan, Noreen D. Willows

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsAssembly of First NationsUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaAlberta Innovates - Health SolutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsEnvironmental healthFood intakeMedicineGeographyEnergy densityFood scienceGerontologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the food types consumed by 3276 First Nations citizens from the First Nations Food Nutrition and Environment Study (FNFNES) living on-reserve in Canada. Data from 24-h dietary recalls were classified into NOVA categories: fresh or minimally processed foods (MPF), processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods (UPF). Individuals were classified as traditional food (TF) eaters if they ate MPF of their First Nations culture. UPF accounted for 54.0% of energy intake; 23% of participants ate TF. Increasing age and household size, living in British Columbia and TF eating were associated with a lower intake of energy from UPF. Eating TF appeared to be protective against intake of UPF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and NutritionSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207