MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1501223773 · doi:10.1111/obr.12077

Monitoring the health‐related labelling of foods and non‐alcoholic beverages in retail settings

2013· review· en· W1501223773 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Rayner, Amanda Wood, Mark Lawrence, Cliona Ní Mhurchú, J. Albert, Sı́món Barquera, Sharon Friel, Corinna Hawkes, Bridget Kelly, Shiriki Kumanyika, Mary R. L’Abbé, Amanda Lee, Tim Lobstein, Jixiang Ma, J. Macmullan, Sailesh Mohan, Carlos Augusto Monteiro, Bruce Neal, Gary Sacks, David Sanders, Wendy Snowdon, Boyd Swinburn, Stefanie Vandevijvere, C. Walker

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBritish Heart FoundationRockefeller Foundation
KeywordsLabellingFood labellingFood supplyFood productsBusinessFood labelingEnvironmental healthHealth claims on food labelsMedicineFood sciencePsychologyBiologyAgricultural science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food labelling on food packaging has the potential to have both positive and negative effects on diets. Monitoring different aspects of food labelling would help to identify priority policy options to help people make healthier food choices. A taxonomy of the elements of health-related food labelling is proposed. A systematic review of studies that assessed the nature and extent of health-related food labelling has been conducted to identify approaches to monitoring food labelling. A step-wise approach has been developed for independently assessing the nature and extent of health-related food labelling in different countries and over time. Procedures for sampling the food supply, and collecting and analysing data are proposed, as well as quantifiable measurement indicators and benchmarks for health-related food labelling.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations103
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207