MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049711608 · doi:10.1177/0260106020944299

Frequency of fruit juice consumption and association with nutrient intakes among Canadians

2020· article· en· W3049711608 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mary M. Murphy, Leila M. Barraj, Tristin D. Brisbois, Alison M. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition and Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphPepsiCo (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFruit juiceNutrientMedicineVitamin CConsumption (sociology)Food scienceAscorbic acidVitaminEnvironmental healthMicronutrientBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Canada, studies on consumption of 100% fruit juice and nutrient intakes are limited. AIM: This study aimed to evaluate nutrient intakes and adequacy of intake by frequency of fruit juice consumption. METHODS: = 34,351) participating in the Canadian Community Health Survey, 2004 with a 24-hour dietary recall and reported usual frequency of fruit juice consumption (assumed to be 100% juice) were categorized by frequency of consumption as <0.5, ≥0.5 to <1.5, or ≥1.5 times/day. RESULTS: More frequent consumption of fruit juice (≥0.5 times/day) was associated with higher intakes of total fruits and vegetables, whole fruits, energy, total sugars, vitamin C and potassium. More frequent consumption of fruit juice was associated with improved intake adequacy of vitamin C for adults. CONCLUSIONS: Fruit juice consumption contributes to increased intakes of vitamin C and potassium as well as energy and total sugars, thus presenting a trade-off for consumers to balance.

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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition and HealthSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207