MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943088298 · doi:10.3390/nu11051009

Consumption of Ready-to-Eat Cereal in Canada and Its Contribution to Nutrient Intake and Nutrient Density among Canadians

2019· article· en· W2943088298 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassan Vatanparast, Naorin Islam, Rashmi Prakash Patil, Arash Shamloo, Pardis Keshavarz, Jessica Smith, Luan Manh Chu, Susan J. Whiting

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGeneral Mills
KeywordsNutrientConsumption (sociology)Nutrient densityOverweightObesityEnvironmental healthMedicineFood scienceBiologyInternal medicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, ready-to-eat cereal (RTEC) has become a common breakfast option in Canada and worldwide. This study used the nationally representative cross-sectional data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2015-Nutrition to determine patterns of RTEC consumption in Canada and the contribution to nutrient intake among Canadians who were ≥2 years, of whom 22 ± 0.6% consumed RTEC on any given day. The prevalence of RTEC consumption was highest in children aged two to 12 years (37.6 ± 1.2%), followed by adolescents aged 13 to 18 years (28.8 ± 1.4%), and then by adults ≥19 years (18.9 ± 0.6%). RTEC consumers had higher intakes of “nutrients to encourage” compared to the RTEC non-consumers. More than 15% of the daily intake of some nutrients, such as folic acid, iron, thiamin, and vitamin B6, were contributed by RTEC. It was noted that nearly 66% of milk consumption was co-consumed with RTEC among RTEC consumers. The nutrient density of the diet, as defined by Nutrient-Rich Food Index (NRF 9.3), was significantly higher among RTEC consumers compared to non-consumers. RTEC consumption was not associated with overweight/obesity. RTEC consumption considerably contributed to the intake of some key nutrients among all age groups in Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207