Plant-based dietary practices in Canada: examining definitions, prevalence and correlates of animal source food exclusions using nationally representative data from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey–Nutrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: While plant-based dietary practices (PBDPs) have been recommended to improve both population health and environmental sustainability outcomes, no nationally representative Canadian studies have described the prevalence or correlates of excluding animal source foods. The current study therefore: (1) created operationalised definitions of PBDPs based on animal source food exclusions to estimate the prevalence of Canadians who adhere to PBDPs and (2) examined key correlates of PBDPs. DESIGN: Population representative, cross-sectional data were from the 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition. Respondents' PBDPs were categorised as: (1) vegan (excluded red meat, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy); (2) vegetarian (excluded red meat, poultry and fish); (3) pescatarian (excluded red meat and poultry) and (4) red meat excluder (excluded red meat). Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression analyses were used to examine the prevalence and correlates of these PBDP categories. SETTING: All ten provinces in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Canadians aged 2 years and above (n 20 477). RESULTS: In 2015, approximately 5 % of Canadians reported adhering to any PBDP (all categories combined) with the majority (2·8 %) categorised as a red meat excluder, 1·3 % as vegetarian, 0·7 % as pescatarian and 0·3 % as vegan. South Asian cultural identity (OR 19·70 (95 % CI 9·53, 40·69)) and higher educational attainment (OR 1·97 (95 % CI 1·02, 3·80)) were significantly associated with reporting a vegetarian/vegan PBDP. CONCLUSIONS: Despite growing public discourse around PBDPs, only 5 % of Canadians reported PBDPs in 2015. Understanding the social and cultural factors that influence PBDPs is valuable for informing future strategies to promote environmentally sustainable dietary practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".