Benefits and barriers towards pulse consumption in physically active adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary pulse consumption (PC) in Canada is low and currently little information is available to explain this trend. We assessed, using a modified questionnaire, the perceived benefits and barriers to PC among physically active adults. The questionnaire, based on the health beliefs model, addressed key barriers and benefits of PC, nutritional knowledge, physical activity, current PC and demographics. Fifty‐one respondents (32 m, 19 f, 24.5 y), from Saskatoon, SK completed the questionnaire. The benefits associated with PC were agreed with more often compared to barriers of PC. The practical barriers of a lack of preparation knowledge (58% agreed) and time constraints (39% agreed) received the highest rate of agreement, but respondents disagreed with barriers of social pressure and self‐efficacy (82% disagreed). Respondents agreed with the benefit of improved general health (82% agreed), but demonstrated a lack of awareness for disease prevention, environmental and economical benefits of PC. Strategies to promote these nutrient‐rich foods should aim to improve practical skills in food preparation and increase knowledge of the specific health benefits of PC. (Research funding provided by the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers)
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".