<i>Does eating while watching television</i>influence children's food-related behaviours?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess children's food-related behaviours and their relationships with eating while watching television (TV), data were collected from 534 ten-year-old French-Canadian children. A self-administered questionnaire was used. Almost 18% of girls and over 25% of boys reported eating in front of the TV every day. Although, overall, the boys' eating pattern was less healthy than the girls', all of the children's food choices deteriorated with increased frequency of eating in front of the TV. Compared with girls, boys gave more importance to coloured and attractive foods, and to selecting foods similar to those eaten by others. Over 50% of children reported always receiving negative weight-related comments from family members. For boys, significant correlations were found between the frequency of eating in front of the TV, the importance given to a food's appearance, and their requests to parents for advertised foods. Significance was at the p<0.05 level for all findings. These results suggest that gender should be considered in attempts to understand children's food motivations and behaviours. The findings also indicate the need to document children's eating environments, and to inform children and their families about eating behaviours that may be associated with a given environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".