Food Reward after a Traditional Inuit or a Westernised Diet in an Inuit Population in Greenland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The food availability and dietary behaviours in Greenland have changed with increasing Westernisation. Food reward is an important driver of food choice and intake, which has not previously been explored in the Arctic population. The aim of this study was to explore differences in food reward after a four-week intervention period with a traditional Inuit diet (TID) or Westernised diet (WD) in Inuit populations in Northern and Western Greenland. This cross-sectional analysis included 44 adults (n = 20 after TID and n = 24 after WD). We assessed the food reward components, explicit liking and implicit wanting, using the Leeds Food Preference Questionnaire under standardised conditions 60 min after drinking a glucose drink as part of an oral glucose tolerance test after four weeks following a TID or WD. The food intake was assessed using food frequency questionnaires. The intervention groups differed only in implicit wanting for high-fat sweet foods, with higher implicit wanting among the participants following TID compared to WD. Both groups had lower explicit liking and implicit wanting for sweet relative to savoury foods and for high-fat relative to low-fat foods. This exploratory study can guide future studies in Inuit populations to include measures of food reward to better understand food intake in the Arctic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".