MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2913753039 · doi:10.3148/64.1.2003.28

<i>What Do Ontario Children Eat for Breakfast?</i> Food Group, Energy and Macronutrient Intake

2003· article· en· W2913753039 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Michelle Hooper, Susan Evers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphHealth Canada
FundersOntario Ministry of Community and Social Services
KeywordsMealEnvironmental healthMedicineSnack foodMorningFood groupFood intakeDemographyFood scienceGerontologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study included 305 children living in Ontario in 1993. Our objective was to determine the proportion of daily energy and macronutrient intake consumed at breakfast, and the major food groups contributing to this meal. Demographic data were obtained in a parent interview that was part of the prevention project Better Beginnings, Better Futures. A single 24-hour recall among parents indicated that breakfast provided a mean of 1,230 (+/- 607) kJ. Although only 4.9% (n= 15) of children ate nothing at breakfast, 26.9% had <837 kJ. Many (59.7%) had amid-morning snack; however, children who consumed <837 kJ at breakfast were not more likely to have a snack than were those who had a greater energy intake. The major sources of energy were foods from the milk (27.4%), cereals (22.1%), and breads (14.1%)groups. Energy intake at breakfast was no different in children whose household income was at or above the low-income cutoff than in children whose household income was below the cutoff. While few children missed breakfast, many needed more energy at this meal, and non-economic as well as economic influences on breakfast consumption need to be identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207