MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075023642 · doi:10.3148/71.4.2010.166

Online Marketing of Food and Beverages to Children: A Content Analysis

2010· article· en· W2075023642 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jennifer Brady, Rena Mendelson, Amber Farrell, Sharon Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and Identification
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBusinessAdvertisingFood marketingMarketingContent analysisSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The goal was to assess websites sponsored by food and beverage manufacturers that have pledged to market branded food and beverage products to children responsibly, by ratifying the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI). METHODS: A content analysis was conducted of 24 purposively sampled websites sponsored by 10 companies that promote food and beverage products to children. All are participant members of the CFBAI. RESULTS: Of the 24 websites analyzed, the majority targeted children below age 12 (83%). An array of innovative online marketing techniques, most notably free website membership (63%), leader boards (50%), adver-games (79%), and branded downloadable content (76%), were used to encourage children's engagement with branded food and beverage promotions. CONCLUSIONS: Food and beverage manufacturers are engaging children with dynamic online marketing techniques that challenge regulatory codes governing broadcast media. These techniques may contradict the spirit of the CFBAI. Innovative regulatory guidelines are needed to address modern marketing media.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicConsumer Behavior in Brand Consumption and IdentificationFrench-language works237,207