MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922346078 · doi:10.1024/0300-9831/a000500

Vitamin D: Insufficiency, Uncertainty and Achievability

2019· article· en· W2922346078 on OpenAlexaffabout
Meghan McGee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVitamin D Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVitamin D and neurologyFortificationSunlightVitaminSun exposurePopulationFood fortificationEnvironmental healthFish <Actinopterygii>Ultraviolet radiationMedicineHigh latitudeFood sciencePhysiologyBiologyEndocrinologyLatitudeChemistryGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vitamin D is a prohormone that is essential to good health. As very few foods (fish, egg yolks, milk) are rich in vitamin D, the main source of the vitamin is synthesized in the skin in the presence of ultraviolet B rays from sunlight. However, due to Canada's northern latitude, sufficient amounts of vitamin D cannot be synthesized using sunlight during the fall and winter months and, consequently, there is a concern that many Canadians are not achieving adequate levels of vitamin D. A wide array of inconsistent evidence derived from serum and dietary assessments has been published and the results are inconclusive. This paper serves to outline the issues and challenges regarding nationwide intervention strategies such as fortification to increase vitamin D intake in the Canadian population. Given the potential for excessive intakes and the lack of informed Canadian data, implementing an intervention to increase vitamin D intake in the entire population may be irresponsible; however, further investigation of vitamin D intakes in certain subgroups of the Canadian population is warranted.

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)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.147
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.147
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0050.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Vitamin and Nutrition ResearchSame topicVitamin D Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207