Snacking Definitions: Impact on Interpretation of the Literature and Dietary Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snacking is a ubiquitous practice that has increased in recent years. However, the impact of snacking on the diet is difficult to assess because a variety of approaches have been used to define snacking (and snack foods) in the literature. This lack of a universally accepted definition complicates interpretation of the literature and limits the development of science-based recommendations for consumers. The purpose of this review is to illustrate this problem by showing that the conclusions derived from the literature are heavily dependent on the definition used or implied by the authors. It is suggested that the a universally accepted definition for snacking be developed by a coalition of stakeholders to provide a template for future research, guidance for the food industry and to enable the development of well-substantiated dietary recommendations.
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 | 0.092 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".