MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288041312 · doi:10.3390/foods11152215

Development of a Canadian Food Composition Database of Gluten-Free Products

2022· article· en· W4288041312 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer A. Jamieson, Kelsey Gill, Samantha Fisher, Marcia English

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceRiboflavinNutrientIngredientFood composition dataMicronutrientNiacinComposition (language)Dietary fiberLegumeFood groupChemistryBiologyBotanyMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Country-specific food composition data are needed for gluten-free (GF) food products to assess nutritional adequacy and diet quality. This research aimed to develop a comprehensive GF food composition database for key GF foods consumed in Canada. Average nutrient data from 167 products were estimated from Nutrition Fact Panel labels and the commercial ingredient list, using an iterative and systematic approach. The database reports mean values for energy and 29 nutrients per 100 g for 33 GF commercial grain-based foods. Nutrient values were evaluated with Health Canada's nutrient content claims per standard reference serving. On average, GF products were, at minimum, a source of thiamin (73%), riboflavin (70%), niacin (58%), iron (58%), fibre (55%), magnesium (48%), folate (36%), zinc (19%), and calcium (15%). Most GF products were low in saturated fat (85%) and cholesterol (64%) but only 15% were low in total fat and 6% were free of sugar. Micronutrient enrichment and the use of nutrient-dense whole grain flours, legume flours, oil seed husks, and functional fibre ingredients varied within and between categories and brands but appeared to contribute to nutrient content. This database provides a new tool to enhance GF diet assessment in individuals or populations in Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueFoodsSame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207