Snack Consumption Patterns among Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The snacking prevalence, frequency of daily snack consumption, and the contribution of snacks to daily energy intake have substantially increased globally. The aim of this study was to examine the patterns of snack consumption among a representative sample of Canadians aged 2 and older. Nationally representative dietary data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) conducted in 2015 (n = 19,677 participants aged ≥2 years) were used to describe snacking patterns. In all, 80.4% of Canadians reported consuming at least one snack per day, which varied between different age groups from 77.0% (≥55 years) to 96.4% (2–5 years). About 37% of snack consumers reported only one snack episode per day but nearly 10% reported four or more episodes of snacking. Snacking contributed to nearly 23% of total daily energy intake in Canadians, which was highest among younger children (27%) and lowest among older adults (20.8%). There were no significant differences in obesity measures comparing snack consumers and non-consumers in children and adults. Snacking considerably contributes to total nutrient and energy intake of Canadians. Promoting nutrient-dense snacks provides an opportunity to improve overall diet quality.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".