A temporal analysis of Canadian dietary choices using the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2: does nutrient intake and diet quality vary on weekends versus weekdays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is currently known on how specific days of week can impact the patterns of dietary intake. In response, this study evaluated the temporal variation in food and nutrient intake on weekdays versus weekend days in the Canadian population. Data were from participants aged >;1 year (n=34,402) in the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 2.2, a nationally representative survey which included 24‐hour dietary recall data. Energy‐adjusted regression models examined the weekday‐weekend variation in nutrient intake and diet quality, assessed using Healthy Eating Index‐Canada (HEI‐C). For this study, weekdays were defined as Monday‐Thursday, and weekend as Friday‐Sunday. Energy Intake was found to be 62±23 kcal higher on weekend days than on weekdays (p<0.05). Compared to weekdays, on weekend days intakes of carbohydrates, protein and the majority of micronutrients were significantly lower (ranging from 2.0–6.9% lower), while alcohol and cholesterol intakes were 67% and 10% higher, respectively. HEI‐C was also significantly lower on weekend days (57.75±0.3 vs 55.8±0.4, p<0.05). These results suggested that Canadians consume foods with a slightly less favourable nutrient profile and poorer dietary quality on weekends. Future research should focus on the determinants that shape temporal variation in eating behaviors. Grant Funding Source : University of British Columbia Food, Nutrition and Health Vitamin Research Fund
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".