Families, food, and pester power: beyond the blame game?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Given the moral and medical panic surrounding rising rates of childhood obesity, there has been much debate about who on what is to be blamed, with parents and HFSS (high fat, salt, and sugar) food advertising often censured for their role. In this paper, we review the literature on childhood obesity and pester power, and the broader context of consumer socialization within the family. We then discuss findings from a questionnaire and focus group study of 8–11 year old children in New Zealand exploring aspects of their advertising experiences and everyday snack food consumption. HFSS food ads were well‐represented in their repertoire of favorite ads, and they reported being influenced by these. However, their accounts of snacking highlighted the extent to which their actual consumption was shaped by parental agendas and concerns. Although they gravitated towards less healthy snack foods, fruit, and vegetables were included in their categorization and repertoire of snacks, perhaps reflecting the level of monitoring and gatekeeping exerted by their parents, who established ground rules for snacking and in many cases directly controlled their access to snack foods, although the limits imposed varied according to context. The children were generally accepting of this, although they drew on a range of strategies and tactics to access their preferred snacks. We conclude by considering the implications of this study for parents who seek to provide their children with a healthy diet and others concerned about health and public policy, and we suggest some avenues for developing knowledge in this area. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".