The relationship between food group consumption, self‐rated health, and life satisfaction of elderly community‐dwelling Canadian males. The Manitoba Follow‐up Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the frequency of food items consumed and their association with self‐rated health and life satisfaction of elderly community‐dwelling men participating in the Manitoba Follow‐up Study – a Canadian prospective study in its 58th year. Self‐reported nutrition and health‐related perceptions were obtained in 2000 using mailed questionnaires from 1,211 Canadian male respondents (mean age of 82 years) participating in the Manitoba Follow‐up Study. The questionnaire examined the frequency of food items consumed (at least once per day, most days, or rarely) based on the food group categorizations described in Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating. Men consuming vegetables/fruit daily were four times more likely to report their health as excellent compared to men consuming this food group rarely, OR=4.00 (95%CI=1.31, 12.3). Similarly, men consuming vegetables/fruit daily were three times more likely to rate their life satisfaction as excellent compared to men consuming this food group rarely, OR=3.08 (95%CI=1.00, 9.45). Daily consumption of vegetables/fruit is a significant factor in predicting self‐rated health and life satisfaction among Canadian elderly males.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".