MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223934512 · doi:10.1101/2022.04.08.487708

A cross-sectional study of the commercial plant-based landscape across the US, UK and Canada

2022· preprint· en· W4223934512 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicola Guess, Kevin C. Klatt, Dorothy Wei, Eric Williamson, Ilayda Ulgenalp, Ornella Trinidade, Eslem Kusaslan, Azize Yilidrim, Charlotte Gowers, Robert Guard, Christine Marie Mills

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceSaturated fatMealFood productsBusinessChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As plant-based foods comprise an ever-increasing proportion of the diet, understanding the nutritional composition of these products is critical. In this study we assess the nutritional content of all commercial plant-based products across multiple sectors (supermarkets, fast food & sit down restaurants, food delivery companies and manufacturers) in the US, UK and Canada. We identified 3488 unique products. Across all sectors, 45% of main meals had >15g protein, 60% had <10%kcal from saturated fat; 29% had >10g fibre per meal; 86% had <1000mg sodium. At restaurants, meat-based main meals were significantly higher in protein and sodium compared to vegetarian and vegan meals. The meat-based options were also significantly higher in saturated fat than the vegan but not vegetarian options. We conclude that plant-based items tend to be lower in saturated fat and sodium than their meat-based counterparts but improvements are needed to optimise their nutritional composition.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207