MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250424155 · doi:10.3138/cpp.36.1.107

Home Cooking, Food Consumption, and Food Production among Retired Canadian Households

2010· article· en· W4250424155 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew Brzozowski, Yuqian Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsumption (sociology)Food away from homeFood consumptionFood processingCalorieEconomicsProduction (economics)Consumer Expenditure SurveyAgricultural economicsEnvironmental healthFood scienceMedicineAggregate expenditurePublic economicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Utilizing the 1996 Canadian Food Expenditure Survey matched with the Canadian Nutrient File, we attempt to differentiate between food consumption and the observed food expenditure among retired Canadians. We look at the effect of retirement on food expenditure, production, and consumption to test the universality of results obtained by Aguiar and Hurst (2005) from US data. In contrast to US results, conditional on a similar vector of covariates, we find no evidence of a fall in food expenditure following retirement. Our results suggest that the quality of food consumed by Canadian households improves somewhat with retirement. Similar to US results, we observe that household calorie intake and major nutrient intake seem not to be adversely affected by changes in retirement status. We find evidence that retired households substitute food purchased for consumption away from home for food purchased for at-home consumption. Further, using the 1998 Time Use Survey, we find that individuals who are retired devote more time for food preparation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207