MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098376028

© 2000 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors Research

2005· article· en· W7098376028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotanical Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedSocioeconomic statusDisadvantageAssociation (psychology)Food intakeNational Longitudinal SurveysLongitudinal studySpare part
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

41 % of all poor children live in households headed by single mothers.2 Social assistance rates across Canada are being frozen or reduced and are widely regarded as insuf-ficient to meet basic needs.1–4 Food banks are complaining of increasing demand, particularly from women and children.5–7 Women with children who live in disadvantaged circum-stances in Canada exhibit dietary intakes below recom-mended levels.8–10 The relation between disadvantage and poor dietary intake is not as clear, however, when children are the subject of inquiry. A study of 182 French-Canadian chil-dren in Montreal, aged 5–18 years, failed to reveal a clear as-sociation between dietary adequacy and socioeconomic fac-tors.11 One reason for this difference may be that mothers modify their own food intake to spare their children nutri-tional deprivation. The 1994 National Longitudinal Survey

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2790.012

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.246 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotanical Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207