MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6998503364

Appalachian Foodways From Then To Now: Using Traditional Foods To Enhance Dietetic Practice

2016· other· en· W6998503364 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission
KeywordsFoodwaysAppalachiaQualitative researchAppalachian RegionPsychological interventionPyramid (geometry)Nutritional scienceFocus groupSemi-structured interview
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Convenience and fast foods have slowly worked their way into the rural Appalachian diet playing a major role in increased obesity and food-related ailments. Increasing future health providers’ knowledge of historical Appalachian dietary patterns and how health is perceived in their rural patients may lead to the development of culturally-sensitive diet therapy when working with rural populations. Methods: To verify the Traditional Southern Appalachian Diet Pyramid and to determine the composition of these dietary patterns, historical cookbooks, articles, and oral history interviews were qualitatively analyzed. Food items were coded into categories on the Diet Pyramid using qualitative analysis software. Results: Final analysis divulges the four largest categories of the traditional Appalachian diet: home grown produce, added fats and sugars, sources of protein, and sources of carbohydrates. Within these categories corn, potatoes, green beans, fat back, soup beans, and pork are some of the ingredients most commonly consumed. Discussion: Findings reveal the traditional Appalachian diet was plant-based, home-grown or gathered produce with the addition of added fats and sugars, protein, and carbohydrate sources fleshing out the diet. Future research endeavors can utilize these findings for developing culturally-sensitive nutrition interventions in rural patients seeking diet therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro)→Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations→French-language works237,207→