Development of the Canadian Food Intake Screener to assess alignment of adults’ dietary intake with the 2019 Canada's Food Guide healthy food choices recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this project was to develop a brief self-administered dietary screener, in English and French, to rapidly assess alignment of adults’ dietary intake with the 2019 Canada's Food Guide healthy food choices recommendations. In consultation with Health Canada and external advisors ( n = 15), guiding principles were defined. Existing screeners were scanned, and the healthy food choices recommendations were mapped to inform questions and response options. Cognitive interviews were conducted in English ( n = 17) and French ( n = 16) with adults aged 18–65 years from April to June 2021 to assess understanding of questions and face validity; recruitment emphasized variation in sociodemographic characteristics. Face and content validity were assessed with experts in nutrition, surveillance, and public health ( n = 13 English, 3 French) from April to May 2021. The testing indicated that the screener was well understood overall but informed refinements to improve comprehension of the questions and their alignment with the healthy food choices recommendations. The resulting Canadian Food Intake Screener/Questionnaire court canadien sur les apports alimentaires includes 16 questions to rapidly assess alignment of intake with the 2019 Canada's Food Guide healthy food choices recommendations, including healthy foods and foods to limit, in situations in which comprehensive dietary assessment is not feasible. Novelty The Canadian Food Intake Screener was developed to rapidly assess alignment of adults’ dietary intake over the past month with the Food Guide's healthy food choices recommendations. The screener was developed and evaluated through an iterative process that included three rounds of cognitive interviews in each of English and French, along with ongoing feedback from external advisors and face and content validity testing with a separate panel of content experts. The 16-question screener is intended for use with adults, aged 18–65 years, with marginal and higher health literacy in research and surveillance contexts in which comprehensive dietary assessment is not possible.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".