Algorithm-based mapping of products in a branded Canadian food and beverage database to their equivalents in Health Canada’s Canadian Nutrient File
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is increasing recognition of the value of linking food sales databases to national food composition tables for population nutrition research. Objectives: Expanding upon automated and manual database mapping approaches in the literature, our aim was to match 1,179 food products in the Canadian data subset of Euromonitor International's Passport Nutrition to their closest respective equivalents in Health Canada's Canadian Nutrient File (CNF). Methods: Matching took place in two major steps. First, an algorithm based on thresholds of maximal nutrient difference (between Euromonitor and CNF foods) and fuzzy matching was executed to offer match options. If a nutritionally appropriate match was available among the algorithm suggestions, it was selected. When the suggested set contained no nutritionally sound matches, the Euromonitor product was instead manually matched to a CNF food or deemed unmatchable, with the unique addition of expert validation to maximize meticulousness in matching. Both steps were independently performed by at least two team members with dietetics expertise. Results: Of 1,111 Euromonitor products run through the algorithm, an accurate CNF match was offered for 65% of them; missing or zero-calorie data precluded 68 products from being run in the algorithm. Products with 2 or more algorithm-suggested CNF matches had higher match accuracy than those with one (71 vs. 50%, respectively). Overall, inter-rater agreement (reliability) rates were robust for matches chosen among algorithm options (51%) and even higher regarding whether manual selection would be required (71%); among manually selected CNF matches, reliability was 33%. Ultimately, 1,152 (98%) Euromonitor products were matched to a CNF equivalent. Conclusion: Our reported matching process successfully bridged a food sales database's products to their respective CNF matches for use in future nutritional epidemiological studies of branded foods sold in Canada. Our team's novel utilization of dietetics expertise aided in match validation at both steps, ensuring rigor and quality of resulting match selections.
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".