<i>Menu Planning for Childcare Centres</i>: Practices and Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Childcare menu planners' relevant knowledge, attitudes, and practices were determined, as were the menu planning guidelines or tools needed and the nutritional adequacy and quality of menus in licensed full-day childcare centres in Nova Scotia. METHODS: An ethics committee-approved questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of 101 licensed childcare centres across the province. Respondents were instructed to forward a copy of their current four-week menu for nutrient analysis and menu quality evaluation. RESULTS: Descriptive statistical data analysis from the returned questionnaires (n=35) indicated that fewer than 50% of the menu planners had relevant training and knowledge. Discrepancies exist between attitudes about good menu planning and practices. A positive finding was that most respondents used reliable resources for menu planning and expressed a desire for updated resources and ongoing training in child nutrition/ menu planning. A number of nutrient and menu quality deficiencies were identified from the menus submitted (n=28). A significant statistical correlation was found between menu planning training and higher menu quality scores. CONCLUSIONS: The results will be relevant to nutritionists in the development of effective resources and training for childcare centre menu planners.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".