MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995266253 · doi:10.3148/69.1.2008.14

<i>A Review of Family Meal Influence</i>On Adolescents’ Dietary Intake

2008· article· en· W1995266253 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sarah J. Woodruff, Rhona M. Hanning

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDanone Institute of Canada
KeywordsMealContext (archaeology)Environmental healthFood intakeMedicineSocial environmentPsychologyGerontologyBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent concerns about adolescent nutrition and unhealthy weights have prompted an examination of the myriad influences on dietary intake during adolescence. Included here are a summary of the literature on family influence on dietary intake, specifically during adolescence and within the family context, a summary of family meal patterns, and a systematic review of the known influences of family meals on dietary intake. Because of the complexity of families in today's society, models were developed to depict the broad context of familial influences on adolescent nutritional behaviours and attitudes and to describe what is known and not known about family meal influences on adolescent dietary intake and quality. A systematic review of the literature revealed seven articles specifically related to adolescents, family meals, and dietary intake, which were analyzed for strength of evidence and plausibility. In spite of data collection methods relying on self-report, results suggested that family meals were associated with improved dietary intakes. Families in today's societies are complex. Nevertheless, parents have the potential to influence positively, through family meals, what food is provided, where it is provided (e.g., home, restaurant), and within what type of atmosphere it is provided.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207