Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the prevalence of self‐reported lactose intolerance (LI) in the Canadian population, and its implications for intakes of nutrients such as calcium and vitamin D. Accordingly, an on‐line survey was completed in September 2011 by a nationally‐representative sample of 2554 English‐ or French‐speaking adults aged ≥19 y. The survey included a semi‐quantitative food frequency questionnaire to assess intake of milk products and soy beverages, questions on use of calcium and vitamin D supplements, a scale to assess health beliefs toward milk products, and questions on LI. Overall, 16% of Canadian adults reported LI. This was significantly more common in women than men (20% vs 12%), in younger than older adults (18% vs 13%), and in non‐Caucasians than Caucasians (23% vs 15%), but did not vary by education level. Those with self‐reported LI had less positive beliefs about health benefits of milk products (mean ± SE score out of 5: 3.1 ± 0.05 vs 3.7 ± 0.01), were less likely to meet recommended intakes of milk products and alternatives (23% vs 41%), and were more likely to use supplemental calcium (52% vs 48%) and vitamin D (58% vs 42%). They had a higher prevalence of inadequate intakes of calcium (68% vs 58%) although vitamin D adequacy did not differ. Aspects of the results suggest the need for additional education on managing perceived LI. Supported by a grant from the Canadian Agri‐Science Cluster Initiative.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".