MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110368006 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzaa163

Traditional Food Energy Intake among Indigenous Populations in Select High-Income Settler-Colonized Countries: A Systematic Literature Review

2020· article· en· W3110368006 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia McCartan, Emma van Burgel, Isobelle McArthur, Sharni Testa, Elisabeth Thurn, Sarah Funston, Angel Kho, Emma McMahon, Julie Brimblecombe

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousGeographySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthMedicineEcologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional diets of Indigenous Peoples globally have undergone a major transition due to settler colonialism. This systematic review aims to provide a perspective of traditional food intake of Indigenous populations in high-income settler-colonized countries. For inclusion, studies reported the primary outcome of interest-traditional food contribution to total energy intake (% of energy)-and occurred in Canada, the United States (including Hawaii and Alaska), New Zealand, Australia, and/or Scandinavian countries. Primary outcome data were reported and organized by date of data collection by country. Forty-nine articles published between 1987 and 2019 were identified. Wide variation in contribution of traditional food to energy was reported. A trend for decreasing traditional food energy intake over time was apparent; however, heterogeneity in study populations and dietary assessment methods limited conclusive evaluation of this. This review may inform cross-sectoral policy to protect the sustainable utilization of traditional food for Indigenous Peoples.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207