Promoting sustainable consumption and healthy eating:A comparative study among public schools in Denmark, Germany, Finland & Italy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the Ottawa charter on the importance of health promotion in settings the school has been named as one of the most important arenas for interventions to promote physical activity and healthy eating. Especially the school food service has been the object of a change agenda that has been named the European school food revolution. This revolution is characterized not only attempts to promote healthy eating but also by attempts to make food supply and consumption more sustainable by integrating organic procurement policies. The current study aims at investigating how these two agendas work together. Do they compete or do they go hand in hand as previous studies suggest? And if this is the case does organic food schemes at school and related curricular activities then induce healthier eating behaviours among children? The research that is part of the iPOPY study was conducted among school food coordinators in public primary/secondary schools (children age from 6 to 15 years old) in Denmark, Germany, Finland and Italy. The study was initiated in Denmark, and subsequently performed in the other three countries through a web‐based questionnaire. The questionnaire was translated and adapted to fit the different languages and food cultures. The questionnaire researched the attitude, policies and serving practices regarding promoting organic foods and healthy eating habits through school food service and classroom activities. The data suggest that schools with organic supply tend to develop organisational environments that a more supportive for healthy eating than their non organic counterparts. However the results were only significant for Denmark and Italy, In Germany results were significant in some cases where as for Finland there were no differences or results were contradictory. The findings suggest the school food revolution is driven by different agendas but that awareness raising on nutrition and sustainability issues seems to be an important feature of many change processes. Findings also suggest that the two agendas although separated in the scientific literature is much more integrated in the everyday life perspective of school practitioners
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".