Are we really “eating well with Canada’s food guide”?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada's Food Guide (CFG) has been an important health promotion tool for over seventy years. The most recent version was released in 2007. This study examined Canadians' exposure to, knowledge, and use of CFG. METHODS: Data came from the Canadian Community Health Survey's Rapid Response on the Awareness and Usage of Canada's Food Guide, which included 10,098 Canadians ≥12 y in all ten provinces. Questions were asked on familiarity, awareness and usage of CFG and Canada's Food Guide for First Nations, Inuit and Métis, as well as healthy eating principles and behaviours. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to observe counts and differences among key demographic variables. RESULTS: More than 80% of Canadians have heard of CFG however significantly more women than men were aware of the Guide. Most knew that 'Vegetables and Fruit' had the most recommended servings and that dark green vegetables should be consumed daily; however fewer than half knew this of orange vegetables. Just under one third had a copy in their homes, and the most common sources for obtaining CFG were child's school and health professional/trainer. Those who consulted CFG recently were more likely to consume the recommended servings of vegetables and fruits, and to state that their eating habits were 'much better' than one year previously. CONCLUSIONS: CFG has "brand recognition" among Canadians however there are gaps between awareness and eating behaviours. The new Food Guide could consider additional dissemination tools including social media, videos and workbooks tailored to various age groups, demographic groups and settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".