Predicting Use of Ineffective Responsive, Structure and Control Vegetable Parenting Practices With the Model of Goal Directed Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study reports the modeling of three categories of ineffective vegetable parenting practices (IVPP) separately (responsive, structure, and control vegetable parenting practices). An internet survey was employed for a cross sectional assessment of parenting practices and cognitive-emotional variables. Parents (n=307) of preschool children (3-5 years old) were recruited through announcements and postings. Models were analyzed with block regression and backward deletion procedures using a composite IVPP scale as the dependent variable. The independent variables included validated scales from a Model of Goal Directed Vegetable Parenting Practices (MGDVPP), including: intention, habit, perceived barriers, desire, competence, autonomy, relatedness, attitudes, norms, perceived behavioral control, and anticipated emotions. The available scales accounted for 26.5%, 16.7% and 44.6% of the variance in the IVPP responsive, structure and control subscales, respectively. Different sets of diverse variables predicted the three IVPP constructs. Intentions, Habits and Perceived Behavioral Control were strong predictors for each of the IVPP constructs, but the subscales were specific to each IVPP construct. Parent emotional responses, an infrequently investigated variable, was an important predictor of ineffective responsive vegetable parenting practices and ineffective structure vegetable parenting practices, but not ineffective control vegetable parenting practices. An Attitude subscale and a Norms subscale predicted ineffective responsive vegetable parenting practices alone. This was the first report of psychometrically tested scales to predict use of IVPP subscales. Further research is needed to verify these findings in larger longitudinal cohorts. Interventions to increase child vegetable intake may have to reduce IVPP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".