Sustainable healthy diet modeling for a plant-based dietary transitioning in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The potential environmental and nutritional benefits of plant-based dietary shifts require thorough investigation to outline suitable routes to achieve these benefits. Whereas dietary consumption is usually in composite forms, sustainable healthy diet assessments have not adequately addressed composite diets. In this study, we build on available data in the Food4HealthyLife calculator to develop 3 dietary concepts (M) containing 24 model composite diet scenarios (S) assessed for their environmental and nutritional performances. The Health Nutritional Index (HENI) and Food Compass scoring systems were used for nutritional quality profiling and estimates of environmental impact were derived from previously reported midpoint impact values for foods listed in the What We Eat in America database. The diets were ranked using the Kruskal‒Wallis nonparametric test, and a dual-scale data chart was employed for a trade-off analysis to identify the optimal composite diet scenario. The results showcased a distinct variation in ranks for each scenario on the environment and nutrition scales, describing an inherent nonlinear relationship between environmental and nutritional performances. However, trade-off analysis revealed a diet with 10% legumes, 0.11% red meat, 0.28% processed meat and 2.81% white meat could reduce global warming by 54.72% while yielding a diet quality of 74.13 on the Food Compass Scoring system. These observations provide an interesting forecast of the benefits of transitioning to an optimal plant- and animal-based dieting pattern, which advances global nutritional needs and environmental stewardship among consumers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".