Describing the Situational Contexts of Sweetened Product Consumption in a Middle Eastern Canadian Community: Application of a Mixed Method Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about the situational contexts in which individuals consume processed sources of dietary sugars. This study aimed to describe the situational contexts associated with the consumption of sweetened food and drink products in a Catholic Middle Eastern Canadian community. A two-stage exploratory sequential mixed-method design was employed with a rationale of triangulation. In stage 1 (n = 62), items and themes describing the situational contexts of sweetened food and drink product consumption were identified from semi-structured interviews and were used to develop the content for the Situational Context Instrument for Sweetened Product Consumption (SCISPC). Face validity, readability and cultural relevance of the instrument were assessed. In stage 2 (n = 192), a cross-sectional study was conducted and exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the structure of themes that emerged from the qualitative analysis as a means of furthering construct validation. The SCISPC reliability and predictive validity on the daily consumption of sweetened products were also assessed. In stage 1, six themes and 40-items describing the situational contexts of sweetened product consumption emerged from the qualitative analysis and were used to construct the first draft of the SCISPC. In stage 2, factor analysis enabled the clarification and/or expansion of the instrument's initial thematic structure. The revised SCISPC has seven factors and 31 items describing the situational contexts of sweetened product consumption. Initial validation of the instrument indicated it has excellent internal consistency and adequate test-retest reliability. Two factors of the SCISPC had predictive validity for the daily consumption of total sugar from sweetened products (Snacking and Energy demands) while the other factors (Socialization, Indulgence, Constraints, Visual Stimuli and Emotional needs) were rather associated to occasional consumption of these products.
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 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".