Determinants of diet quality among Quebecers aged 55-74.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Sociodemographic, lifestyle and dietary characteristics were studied to gain insights into determinants of total diet quality and diversity in a weighted sample of 460 participants aged 55-74 (53% female) from the 1990 Enqu te qu b coise sur la nutrition (EQN) dataset. METHODS: Dietary data consisted of an interviewer-administered 24-hour recall and food frequency questionnaire, and a self-administered questionnaire on dietary behaviours, attitudes and perceptions. 24-hour recall data were coded into food groups as described in Canada's Food Guide for Healthy Eating. Diet quality was scored using the categorical Dietary Diversity Score (DDS, range 0-4) and continuous Dietary Adequacy Score (DAS, range 0-18). A second nonconsecutive recall (10% of subjects) permitted correction of food group portions for intraindividual variability and subsequent calculation and validation of usual DDS and DAS. Relationships were examined between the scores and independent variables. Forward leastwise logistic regession (DDS) and stepwise multiple regression (DAS) analyses were conducted with independent variables showing significant bivariate relationships. RESULTS: Among men, breakfast consumption and eating commercially-prepared meals were positively associated with usual DDS, but poor social support and supplement use negatively predicted this score. Eating fewer than 3 meals daily, smoking, and dietary supplement use were negative predictors of usual DAS (r2=0.155). Among women, eating commercial foods was a negative predictor of usual DDS, as was preferring overweight to depriving themselves of favourite foods. Reporting that health concerns influenced food choices and disagreeing with the statement that effort is needed to have a nice body were positive determinants of usual DAS in women. On the other hand, eating fewer than 3 meals daily negatively predicted this dietary index (r2 = 0.162). CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in predictors of diet quality suggest the need to target nutrition health promotion to the needs of older men and women to encourage optimal eating habits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".