MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105822830 · doi:10.1177/1524839913498087

Exploring the School Nutrition Policy Environment in Canada Using the ANGELO Framework

2013· article· en· W2105822830 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle M. Vine, Susan J. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipContext (archaeology)Health promotionPromotion (chess)CurriculumNutrition EducationPolitical scienceFood policyPublic healthPublic relationsMedicineGerontologyGeographyPoliticsFood securityNursingAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excess body weight has become a major public health issue. Given the link between poor nutrition, obesity, and chronic disease in youth, increasing attention is being paid to the school as an ideal setting for promoting nutritious eating practices. Informed by the ANGELO (Analysis Grid for Environments Linked to Obesity) framework, we employ a documentary analysis to investigate the context of school nutrition in Canada, particularly the relationship between regional- and upper-level policies. In doing so, we examine policy documents and technical reports across three levels. We used mixed methods to analyze relevant English language policy documents and technical reports across Canada (n = 58), published between 1989 and 2011. Results reveal distinct differences across federal, provincial, and regional levels. The availability of nutritious food in schools and having nutrition education as part of the curriculum were key components of the physical environment across federal and provincial levels. Federal and provincial priorities are guided by a health promotion framework and adopting a partnership approach to policy implementation. Gaps in regional-level policy include incorporating nutrition education in the curriculum and making the link between nutrition and obesity. Policy implications are provided, in addition to future research opportunities to explore the connections between these environments at the local level.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.021
Science and technology studies0.0090.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207