Canada's food guide to healthy eating: a qualitative investigation of the perceptions and understanding of consumers with two years or less of Canadian post-secondary education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To supplement Health Canada's review of 'Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating' (CFGHE), this study conducted a qualitative investigation of the perceptions and understanding of CFGHE among consumers with two years or less of post-secondary education. In total, 53 male and female participants were recruited from Guelph, Ontario using convenience sampling. Seven focus groups were formed with 5-9 participants and led by a professional moderator. The tape-recorded group interviews were transcribed and analyzed using 'accurate description' analysis. Participants' responses were summarized with little interpretation, and common ideas were identified. The study found that consumers perceived CFGHE to lack practical relevance, appeal and the specific information necessary for complete understanding of the ' Food Guide's' dietary advice. Participants also felt that CFGHE cannot stand up to the growing popularity of alternative opinions on nutrition and health. Many participants were unable to understand key messages and recommendations in CFGHE and overlooked important concepts. As a result, participants were less likely to consider CFGHE at all when making decisions relating to food.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".