Secondary data analysis of nutritional status of Canadians using the Canadian Community Health Survey and the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, 2.2 (N=32,776) and 3 cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (N=15,754) were used for this thesis. The general objectives of this thesis were to: 1) explore the impact of soy and pulse food consumption as a healthy food source in the Canadian diet, 2) examine the post-fortification folate intake and red blood cell folate status of the average Canadian and 3) explore new methodological developments in estimating nutrient intakes based on food frequency data and correlations of nutrient intakes with blood nutrient levels. Results indicated that soy consumption was associated with an improvement in dietary quality of Canadians; however, neither pulse or soy consumption did not appear to relate to the nutrient profile of Manitobans 2-18 years but instead shed light on their overall poor eating habits. Secondary analysis highlighted potential groups who may be at risk for adverse health effects linked with their habitual folic acid intake. In particular 18% of respondents who reported consuming vitamin/mineral supplements containing folic acid were above the Upper Intake Level, and 25% had elevated blood folate levels, potentially increasing their risk for certain health problems associated with overconsumption. Using regression model parameters and “fitted” portion sizes were found to be reasonable approaches for estimating nutrient intakes from food frequency questionnaires, if 24 hr recall data is available. This thesis allows insight into nutritional short-comings of Canadians, demonstrates the potential amelioration of certain nutrient intakes such as protein and fibre by the inclusion of key foods in the diet (soy and pulse) and sheds light on potential adverse effects associated with fortification policy as well as aids in the development of new approaches in utilizing food frequency data to estimate nutrient intakes. Outcomes from this study may allow for the possibility of future recommendations to be made in regards to nutrient intake, supplement use and public health and nutrition policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".