Additional file 1: of Assessing the nutritional quality of diets of Canadian children and adolescents using the 2014 Health Canada Surveillance Tool Tier System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Table S1. Weighted analysis of energy intake (percentage) within the food groups by 2014 Health Canada Surveillance Tool Tier System among Canadian children (2–11 years of age) and adolescents (12–18 years of age).* Table S2. Weighted analysis of characteristics of compliers, intermediates, and non-compliers based on the percentage of energy from Tier 4 foods and “other” foods among Canadian adolescents (12–18 years)*, †. Table S3. Weighted analysis of nutrient intakes (density approach) [50] by compliers, intermediates, and non-compliers based on the percentage of energy consumed from Tier 4 foods and “other” foods among Canadian adolescent (12–18 years)*. Figure S1. Weighted age-stratified analysis of classification of foods as a percentage of servings based on the 2014 Health Canada Surveillance Tool Tier system*,† among Canadian population of a) Boys and Girls ages 9 to 13 years, and b) Boys and Girls ages 14 to 18 years inclusive. (DOCX 49 kb)
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.465 | 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".