MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946834093 · doi:10.3390/nu11061203

Consumption of Yogurt in Canada and Its Contribution to Nutrient Intake and Diet Quality Among Canadians

2019· article· en· W2946834093 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hassan Vatanparast, Naorin Islam, Rashmi Prakash Patil, Arash Shamloo, Pardis Keshavarz, Jessica Smith, Susan J. Whiting

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGeneral Mills
KeywordsRiboflavinNutrientConsumption (sociology)Environmental healthFood scienceDairy foodsMedicineDietary Reference IntakeNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 20,487) in order to evaluate patterns of yogurt consumption among Canadians. Overall, 20% of Canadians have reportedly consumed yogurt on a given day in 2015. Higher prevalence of yogurt consumption was noted among children aged 2-5 years old (47%) when compared to adults aged 19-54 years (18%). When the prevalence of yogurt consumption at the regional level in Canada was assessed, Quebec had the most consumers of yogurt (25%) compared to other regions, namely the Atlantic (19%), Ontario (18%), Prairies (19%) and British Columbia (20%). Yogurt consumers reported consuming higher daily intakes of several key nutrients including carbohydrates, fibre, riboflavin, vitamin C, folate, vitamin D, potassium, iron, magnesium, and calcium when compared to yogurt non-consumers. Additionally, the diet quality, measured using NRF 9.3 scoring method, was higher among yogurt consumers compared to non-consumers. Nearly 36% of Canadians who meet the dietary guidelines for milk and alternative servings from the Food Guide Canada (2007) reported consuming yogurt. Lastly, no significant difference in BMI was noted among yogurt consumers and non-consumers. Overall, yogurt consumers had a higher intake of key nutrients and had a better 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 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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207