AVERAGE DAILY FLUID INTAKE OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN A PRIVATE SECTOR UNIVERSITY IN ISLAMABAD; A CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Appropriate fluid intake is necessary to carry out all the essential biochemical reactions taking place inside a human body.Methodology: The current study was carried out at the Department of Diet and Nutritional Sciences, The University of Lahore, Islamabad Campus in which a cross sectional study design was used. A total of one hundred students were chosen using the technique of convenience sampling. Students who gave consent were made a part of the study while those suffering from any chornic diseases were excluded. For the purpose of determination of avergae daily fluid intake of students, twenty-four hour dietray recall was taken. Food composition tables were used to calculate the exact amount of fluids contributed by each food item or beverage.Results: The results of the study revealed that only 12% students were having an avergae daily intake of fluid either equivalent to or more than the recommended intake. On the other hand, reamining 88% students were having an average daily fluid intake of less than the recommended intake.Conclusions: The current study concluded that the average daily fluid intake of 88% students enrolled at the Department of Diet and Nutritional Sciences, The University of Lahore, Islamabad Campus which was not appropriate in comparison to the recommended intake.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".