Perceptions des adultes canadiens relatives à la consommation de lait et fromage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pourquoi seulement le tiers des Canadiens consomment quotidiennement au moins deux portions de lait et substituts? Comment expliquer leur consommation? Dans le cadre de ce projet, la plupart des hommes et femmes interrogés (n=161) ont dit être sensibles aux effets sur la santé et au goût, ressentir parfois de l’approbation, parfois la désapprobation de leur entourage et considèrent le prix et une confiance atténuée comme une barrière. Leurs perceptions sont différentes par rapport au lait et au fromage; boire du lait étant davantage associé aux enfants, à des raisons cognitives et soulevant plus de questionnements, tandis que le fromage est associé au plaisir, aux adultes, est plus pratique et plus favorisé par l’offre alimentaire. Ces résultats mettent en évidence les principales croyances sous-jacentes à la consommation de lait et fromage et contribueront à soutenir l’efficacité des stratégies visant la promotion d’une consommation optimale de ces aliments auprès de la population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".