MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029154808 · doi:10.1051/medsci/2020079

Les édulcorants de la controverse

2020· review· fr· W3029154808 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandra Pepin, Pascal Imbeault

Bibliographic record

Venuemédecine/sciences · 2020
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFood scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substantial reviews of the most recent evidence report a strong relationship between the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and adverse health effects, such as the prevalence of obesity and metabolic diseases. Various public policies were recently undertaken by many countries in the hope of reducing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption amongst their population. This has led the food industries to promote low-calorie sweeteners (sugar substitutes) as a healthy alternative that would limit caloric intake without compromising the sweet taste of food and beverages. However, is the use of low-calorie sweeteners as a means of limiting or reducing energy intake without consequences for our health? This review aims to discuss the effects of low-calorie sweeteners consumption on health and to elucidate whether their use should be recommended by health professionals to their patients as part of weight management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemédecine/sciencesSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207