Rejection of Known and Previously Accepted Foods During Early Childhood: An Extension of the Neophobic Response?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children begin to reject new foods (food neophobia) at around 18 to 30 months. At this time parents also report the rejection of known and previously accepted foods. The studies presented here are the first to examine this rejection of previously accepted foods in isolation and presents a number of significant findings. Using a parental questionnaire, it was found that the rejection of known and previously accepted food begins towards the end of infancy, commonly occurs during nursery age, reduces in frequency after 30 months and most often involves the rejection of vegetables, mixed foods and fruit. It is hypothesised that some known and previously accepted foods are rejected due to an extension of the neophobic response. When neophobia begins, infants become hyper-vigilant to the visual perceptual features of food in order to recognise the food given. Foods not matching learnt expectations, due to perceptual changes between servings, may be categorised as ‘new’ or ‘different’ and rejected in a neophobic response. A second study offers some support for this hypothesis, showing that those children who are reported as having rejected a known and previously accepted food score higher on neophobia and ‘picky’ eating scales. Implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".