MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553871103 · doi:10.22230/cjc.2012v37n2a2550

Packaging Fun: Analyzing Supermarket Food Messages Targeted at Children

2012· article· en· W1553871103 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Communication · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrutinyFood marketingChildhood obesityAdvertisingQuality (philosophy)MarketingBusinessUnhealthy foodHealthy foodFood choiceKey (lock)PsychologyObesityMedicineFood sciencePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Childhood obesity has prompted an increased scrutiny of the foodscape, along with the call for innovative strategies to make our social environments more supportive of healthy eating. Child-targeted supermarket foods are an increasing, but typically overlooked, part of this food environment. Using content analysis, this article profiles the strategies used to market foods to children and their parents in the Canadian supermarket environment. Child-targeted food products were purchased from two major grocery store chains in Calgary, Alberta, and assessed in terms of their packaging, marketing appeals, nutritional quality, and food type. The discussion details how and why the marketing of “fun” in food creates key challenges in terms of supporting child health.

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.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.199 · 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