MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessing ‘fun foods’: nutritional content and analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children

2007· review· en· W2089485183 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)Food scienceQuality (philosophy)Added sugarSugarNutrition LabelingFood productsFood packagingPackaging and labelingEnvironmental healthFood labellingBusinessNutrition facts labelLabellingMedicineMarketingPsychologyMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides a nutritional profile of foods targeted specifically at children in the Canadian supermarket. Excluding confectionery, soft drinks and bakery items, 367 products were assessed for their nutritional composition. The article examines the relationship between 'fun food' images/messages, product claims and actual product nutrition. Among other findings, it concludes that approximately 89% of the products analysed could be classified as of poor nutritional quality owing to high levels of sugar, fat and/or sodium. Policy considerations need to be made in light of the fact that 'fun food' is a unique category that poses special challenges; as such, recommendations regarding food labelling and packaging are presented.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.178
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.221 · 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