Integration and individuality in healthy eating: meanings, values, and approaches of childless, dual earner couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Although considered to be an important component of food choice, perceptions and practices regarding healthy eating vary between people and change over the life-course. The purpose of this paper is to examine integration and individuality in healthy eating meanings, values, and approaches of individuals in childless, dual earner couples. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen participants (from seven couples) were recruited using notices and snowball sampling. Food journals and individual interviews were used to explore the nature of and negotiations between partners' healthy eating values and approaches. Data were analysed through iterative procedures that included coding, thematic analysis and memo writing. RESULTS: Participants presented individual healthy eating values and approaches based on their own experiences with food over time. Cohabitation resulted in a continuum of healthy eating negotiation outcomes, including congruent values and approaches, congruent values but divergent approaches, and divergent values and approaches. In combination with other salient factors, cohabitation provides an opportunity for improving healthy eating approaches. DISCUSSION: Cohabitation has the potential to lead to positive changes in healthy eating approaches. Practitioners need to tailor messages for clients' specific needs and encourage change in the direction of the partner with the healthier eating approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".