Cooking methods and kitchen ventilation availability, usage, perceived performance and potential in Canadian homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cooking is a substantial contributor to air pollutant exposures in many residences. Effective use of kitchen ventilation can mitigate exposure; however, information on its availability, usage, and potential to increase its use across the population has been limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain nationally representative information on cooking methods, kitchen ventilation availability and usage, and the potential for education to increase effective usage. METHODS: An online survey was sent to a representative sample of Canadian homes to collect data on cooking methods, the presence and use of mechanical kitchen ventilation devices, perceived device performance, and willingness to implement mitigation strategies. Responses were weighted to match key demographic factors and analyzed using non-parametric statistics. RESULTS: Among the 4500 respondents, 90% had mechanical ventilation devices over the cooktop (66% of which were vented to the outside), and 30% reported regularly using their devices. Devices were used most often for deep-frying, followed by stir-frying, sautéing or pan-frying, indoor grilling, boiling or steaming. Almost half reported rarely or never using their ventilation devices during baking or oven self-cleaning. Only 10% were fully satisfied with their devices. More frequent use was associated with the device being vented to the outdoors, having more than two speed settings, quiet operation if only one speed, covering over half of the cooktop, and higher perceived effectiveness. After being informed of the benefits of kitchen ventilation, 64% indicated they would consider using their devices more often, preferentially using back burners with ventilation, and/or using higher ventilation device settings when needed. IMPACT: This study provides population-representative data on the most used cooking methods, kitchen ventilation availability and usage, and influencing factors in Canadian homes. Such data are needed for exposure assessments and evaluating the potential to mitigate cooking-related pollutant exposures via more effective use of kitchen ventilation. The data can be reasonably extrapolated to the United States, given the similarities in residential construction practices and cultural norms between the two countries.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".