Geographic Comparison of Dietary Intake and Quality in Manitoba Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The Food and Nutrition for Manitoba Youth (FANS) study examined dietary intakes, food behaviours, food security status, health indicators, and body mass index of a cohort of grade 9 students. This paper describes regional differences and similarities in dietary intake (food and nutrients) and quality of youth participants in the FANS study. Methods: Grade 9 students completed a web-based survey on dietary intakes (24-hour recall), food behaviours, self-reported health indicators, and sociodemographic variables. Nutrient intakes were compared with national guidelines and diet quality was assessed using a modified Healthy Eating Index. Results: A total of 1587 students participated from northern, rural, and urban regions in Manitoba. Northern and rural students had higher intakes of sugar, sodium, and saturated fat compared with urban. Northern students consumed fewer grain products compared to urban, and more servings of “other” foods compared with rural and urban. While most participants were classified into the “needs improvement” or “poor” Healthy Eating Index categories, significantly more northern participants were in the “poor” category. Conclusions: Most adolescents in the study are at nutritional risk; however, there are additional vulnerabilities for those in rural and northern communities. Dietitians can use results to advocate for and plan interventions to improve adolescent nutrition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".