MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127721771 · doi:10.1017/s1368980021000446

Development and testing of the Sustainable Nutrition Environment Measures Survey for retail stores in Ontario

2021· article· en· W3127721771 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sadaf Mollaei, Goretty Dias, Leia Minaker

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsCarbon footprintBusinessTest (biology)MarketingEnvironmental healthAgricultural economicsEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a tool to assess the price and availability of low-carbon footprint and nutritionally balanced dietary patterns in retail food environments in Ontario, Canada. DESIGN: Availability and price of selected food from discount and regular grocery stores (n 23) in urban/rural areas of northern/southern Ontario were assessed with the Sustainable Nutrition Environment Measures Survey in 2017. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was high for price (intra-class correlation coefficients = 0·819) and for availability (Cohen's κ = 0·993). The tool showed 78 % of the selected food items were available in all stores. Overall, price differences were small between urban and rural locations, and northern and southern Ontario. The greatest price difference was between discount and regular stores. CONCLUSIONS: The tool showed excellent inter-rater agreement. Researchers and public health dietitians can use this tool for research, practice and policy to link consumer-level health outcomes to the retail environment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207