MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162915152

Pulse: Surprise! Women eat healthier than men

2002· article· en· W3162915152 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shelley Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyConsumption (sociology)Alcohol consumptionAlcoholEnvironmental healthMealGerontologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistics Canada's 2000/01 Community Health Survey reveals that women 20 and older eat fruit and vegetables 4.9 times per day, compared with 4.2 times for men in the same age category. Women who describe themselves as active or moderately active consume them more often than those who are inactive (5.7 and 5.3 times/day v. 4.5). Active and moderately active men also eat fruit and vegetables more frequently than inactive males (4.9 and 4.3 times/day v. 3.9). The survey also found that alcohol-dependent Canadians consume fruits and vegetables less frequently than those who are not dependent. (Respondents who reported having 5 or more drinks at one time at least once a month in the year before the survey were considered alcohol dependent.) Women who were not dependent on alcohol ate fruits and vegetables 4.9 times per day, compared with 3.9 times daily for women who were dependent. Likewise, alcohol-dependent men consume fruits and vegetables less often than those who do not (3.8 times/day v. 4.3 times). Men with chronic medical conditions or disabilities consume fruits and vegetables less often than those without them (4.2 times/day v. 4.6), but there is no difference in consumption between women with and without chronic conditions or disabilities. For both men and women, the frequency of consumption of fruits and vegetables increases with household income and education. Men and women who are married or living in common-law relationships eat fruits and vegetables more frequently than those who are single, separated, widowed or divorced. — Shelley Martin, Senior Analyst, Research, Policy and Planning Directorate, CMA

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1630.108

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→