MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1866774647 · doi:10.1177/1470357216668693

Transparent choices: communicating packaged food content to children

2017· article· en· W1866774647 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Communication · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood choiceMarketingHealthy foodFocus groupPsychologyAction (physics)BusinessPublic relationsMedicinePolitical scienceFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focusing on how children make food choices, this article presents research to support efforts to meet children’s information needs when it comes to food packaging. Using focus groups, the authors examine children’s perspectives on ‘most healthy’ and ‘least healthy’ packaged food. Findings reveal that children understand whole foods as ‘healthy’ foods, use the Nutrition Facts label to guide their decisions, and interpret package visuals as literal descriptions of what a food contains. These findings provide evidence-based support to improve food packaging design regulations. Finally, the authors call for transparent visual communication strategies, which aim to improve the critical thinking skills of children, and provide a foundation for informed decision-making across a lifetime.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.239
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.336
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