Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Easy access to fast‐food restaurants in the immediate environment of a high school is such that a high proportion of students do not remain in school for lunch. Hence, the probability that they will eat a healthy meal is reduced. The aim of this study is to identify the behavioral determinants of “staying in school to eat lunch” among high school students. Design/methodology/approach The Theory of Planned Behavior has been applied to the development of a questionnaire self‐administered among 153 randomly selected high school students. Findings Overall, 52.3 percent of students remained to eat at school every day during a follow‐up period of two weeks. Logistic regression analyses showed that intention (OR: 16.22; 95 percent CI 7.08‐37.21) was the sole predictor of behavior and that intention was determined by the descriptive norm (OR: 12.67; 95 percent CI 3.39‐47.27), perceived behavioral control (OR: 11.46; 95 percent CI 4.53‐29.04) and attitude (OR: 2.70; 95 percent CI 1.06‐6.85). Practical implications These findings suggest that a combination of interventions targeting both various individual determinants and environmental factors increases the likelihood that youngsters will remain at school to eat their lunch. Originality/value To the best of one's knowledge, this is the first study applying the Theory of Planned Behavior to understand why high school students do not stay in school to eat lunch. This information should be very useful to those interested in developing interventions to promote the policy that students should stay in school to eat their lunch instead of going out to fast food restaurants in the nearby 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".