Dietary sources of energy and nutrients in the contemporary diet of Inuit adults: results from the 2007–08 Inuit Health Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize the major components of the contemporary Inuit diet and identify the primary sources of energy and essential nutrients. DESIGN: Dietary data were derived from the 24 h recall collected by the Inuit Health Survey (IHS) from 2007 to 2008. The population proportion method was used to determine the percentage contribution of each group. Unique food items/preparations (ninety-three country foods and 1591 market foods) were classified into eight country food groups and forty-one market food groups. Nutrient composition of each food item was obtained from the Canadian Nutrient File. SETTING: Thirty-six communities across three Inuit regions of northern Canada. SUBJECTS: A representative sample (n 2095) of non-pregnant Inuit adults (≥18 years), selected through stratified random sampling. RESULTS: Despite their modest contribution to total energy intake (6·4-19·6 %, by region) country foods represented a major source of protein (23-52 %), Fe (28-54 %), niacin (24-52 %) and vitamins D (up to 73 %), B6 (18-55 %) and B12 (50-82 %). By contrast, the three most popular energy-yielding market foods (i.e. sweetened beverages, added sugar and bread) collectively contributed approximately 20 % of total energy, while contributing minimally to most micronutrients. A notable exception was the contribution of these foods to Ca (13-21 %) and vitamins E (17-35 %) and C (as much as 50 %). Solid fruits were consumed by less than 25 % of participants while vegetables were reported by 38-59 % of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Country foods remain a critical dimension of the contemporary Inuit diet.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".