MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Examining participation in school food and nutrition programs among students in grades 6‐8 in Vancouver, Canada (624.23)

2014· article· en· W1523194903 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Teya Stephens, Jennifer Black, Gwen E. Chapman, Cayley E. Velazquez

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealthy foodNutrition EducationSustainabilityEnvironmental healthPsychologyGerontologyMedicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: In Canada, both diet‐related health conditions and the environmental sustainability of the food system are growing concerns being addressed by school food and nutrition programs (SFNPs). The objective of this study was to quantify participation in SFNPs among grade 6‐8 students in Vancouver, and whether participation differed by gender, school‐level, or among schools. Methods: A cross‐sectional survey in 26 diverse Vancouver schools assessed student participation in SFNPs (n=937). Rao‐Scott corrected chi‐square tests were used to evaluate associations between participation, gender, and school variables (p < 0.05). Results: SFNP participation varied significantly between schools, yet < 50% of students reported engaging in most SFNPs examined, including: food preparation (36%), choosing or tasting healthy foods (27%), learning about Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) (45%), learning about foods grown in British Columbia (BC) (35%), growing food in a garden (21%), composting (32%), and recycling (51%). Girls were more likely to report learning about CFG or BC foods, and secondary students were more likely to participate in food‐specific activities compared to elementary students. Conclusions: Despite recent efforts to engage Vancouver students in SFNPs, participation in most SFNPs remains low in most schools. Consequently, few students in grades 6‐8 are being exposed to the whole food cycle. Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the UBC Food Nutrition and Health Vitamin Research Fund

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→