Comparing Dietary Habits of Koreans in Northern America's West Coast City Areas by Immigration Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A convenience samples of Korean-Canadian/American adults who lived in Vancouver, San Hose and Los Angeles areas for over 10 years, were studied in 2000. Total of 130 adults were analyzed by immigration age. The age of immigration age was divided into 3 groups: the young group immigrated at 25 or before, the middle group immigrated at 26 to 40, and the old group immigrated at over 40. Their average length of residence in Canada and the U.S. was a little longer than 20 years. The dietary behavior patterns were similar among 3 groups, except co-eaters and dining-out frequency, and the Korean-Canadians/Americans seemed to be more home-based, family-tightened and traditional patterns than Koreans in Korea. They liked Korean traditional basic dishes, but their children liked a-la-carte ones and immigrants at early 20's showed similar food preferences as young generations. The attitudes of dietary acculturation for themselves and for their children were high. Since immigrating at age 26 to 40 years old rather than 20's or over 40's, showed stronger acculturation attitudes even with no significance and revealed significantly differences in some dietary behaviors and food preferences, it is recommended that immigration age should be considered when planning dietary foodservices at nursing care systems for Korean Canadians/Americans.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".