Kadant buys J&L Fiber Services’ screen cylinder business
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, school meals are regarded as important for social, educational, and nutritional reasons and have been provided for several years because of concerns about the health and welfare of children, especially those from low-income households. They are generally offered as local community organization and individual schools, are not regulated by law, and have no set national nutrition standards. The Canadian scientific literature lacks quantitative information on the nutritional adequacy of school meals. Better and more evaluation of such programs would encourage and guide administrators to assess other local programs in a similar fashion. Here, we describe the dietary assessment process of 1 school meal program in Canada and the nutritional adequacy of the meals. Throughout 10 years (1997-2007), the contents of 159 lunches and 90 breakfasts were collected mainly from elementary schools participating in the Child Hunger and Education Program Good Food, Inc's school nutrition program initiative in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. We collected, weighed, and analyzed food samples from meals served to children at participating schools. We then compared their nutrient content against standards based on the Dietary Recommended Intakes for children aged 4 to 8 and 9 to 13 years using one third of the recommendations as the standard for lunches and one fourth for breakfasts. Overall, both meals had a good nutrient profile and met the standards for most analyzed macronutrients and micronutrients throughout the years. Although energy was persistently low, vitamin and mineral contents were often above the standards, reflecting a tendency to offer nutrient-dense foods in lieu of energy-dense foods. The rigorous methodology described in this manuscript can be followed to assess other small local programs. Furthermore, the dietary assessment presented can encourage not only the implementation of school meal programs in other locations but also the assessment of already existing programs—a clear need in the scientific literature.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".