Fibre Content and Fibre Fortification of Menu Items Served to Sherbrooke Community Centre Residents on Texture Modified Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Research has shown regular and texture modified menus in long term care (LTC) homes provide less than the recommended Dietary Reference Intake for dietary fibre. Constipation may result from inadequate fibre intake and be treated with laxatives and enemas, which may have implications for quality of life. Increasing the amount of fibre provided from texture modified diets may decrease use of such treatments and improve daily fibre intake. Objective: This study was part of a health improvement initiative for residents at Sherbrooke Community Centre (SCC). The goal of this study was to measure the baseline amount of fibre provided to residents on texture modified diets and to increase fibre provision by 5-10 grams per day. Methods: This study involved: 1) determining the fibre content of the texture modified menu for residents on pureed and minced diets; 2) identifying fibres and foods suitable for a fibre fortification trial; 3) conducting a fibre fortification trial and identifying fibre-food combinations for a taste test; and 4) conducting a taste test with SCC staff to assess acceptability of fibre fortified menu items. Thirty SCC staff were included. Results: The average daily fibre provided was 13.4 grams. The fibre fortified foods best accepted by participants were mashed potatoes with red lentils, pudding with pea hull fibre, and gravy with pea hull fibre. Implications: We recommended SCC incorporate the best accepted fibre fortified menu items into their regular and texture modified menus, allowing the daily average amount of fibre to increase by 5.39 grams per day.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".