Exploring the acceptability of seaweed consumption among pregnant individuals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundSeaweed is a nutrient-dense, sustainable, and underutilized food source. Despite its growing popularity, little is known about its consumption and related perceptions during pregnancy.AimTo (1) explore perceptions of health, environmental concerns, and seaweed consumption among pregnant individuals; (2) characterize their seaweed consumption patterns; and (3) identify factors shaping their attitudes and choices regarding seaweed.MethodsData were collected via an online survey developed for this study, incorporating items from the Health Consciousness Scale and questions assessing perceptions, consumption patterns, and attitudes related to seaweed among 120 pregnant participants across all trimesters. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were conducted.ResultsIn terms of health perceptions, most respondents (91.7%) reported being actively engaged in their health, and a majority (81.7%) agreed that the healthfulness of foods greatly influences their dietary choices. Regarding seaweed consumption, 70.8% of participants had consumed seaweed at least once during pregnancy. In addition, 60.0% of respondents expressed a positive attitude toward seaweed.ConclusionsIncorporating seaweed into dietary recommendations during pregnancy may offer both nutritional and environmental benefits. Future research should prioritize rigorous safety assessments to establish evidence-based guidance for seaweed consumption among pregnant individuals.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it