Fruit and vegetable consumption among adults in Namibia: analysis of a nationally representative population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Prevalence of F&V consumption in Namibia is not known. In this study we aimed to address this gap by using nationally representative data with the objectives of measuring the prevalence of adequate F&V consumption among adult men and women and their socio demographic determinants.Methods: This study is based on data from Namibia Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS2013). Sample population were 14 185 men and women aged between 15 and 49 years.Amount of fruit and vegetable consumption was measured by self-reported frequencies and was defined as adequate (at least 5 servings/day) according to World Health Organization (WHO)guidelines.Results: Overall, only 4.3% (3.8-4.9%) of the men and women reported consuming at least 5 servings of F&V a day, with the percentage being slightly higher among women (4.8%,95% CI=3.7-6.2) compared with men (4.2%, 95% CI=3.6-4.8). In the multivariable analysis,education level and household wealth status appeared to be the only factors associated with adequate F&V intake. Men and women who had primary level education had higher odds of eating at least 5 servings of F&V a day compared with those who had no education. Regarding wealth status, men and women from non-poor households had respectively 2.13 times(OR=2.13, 95% CI=1.01-4.48) and 2.2 times (OR=2.19, 95% CI=1.56-3.38) higher odds of eating at least 5 servings of F&V a day.Conclusion: Only a small proportion of the men and women consumed adequate amount of F&V on daily basis. Having primary level education and non-poor household wealth status were positively associated with adequate amount of F&V intake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".