MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137038449 · doi:10.1089/chi.2012.0013

Marketing Foods to Children: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

2012· article· en· W2137038449 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueChildhood Obesity · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMarketingSocial marketingPsychologyMedicineAdvertisingBusinessInternet privacyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The childhood obesity epidemic has prompted a range of regulatory initiatives that seek to reduce the impact of food marketing on children. Policy recommendations by government and public health organizations have suggested regulating the promotion of high-sugar, -fat, and/or -salt foods to children, while the food industry has created voluntary nutrition guidelines to channel child-targeted marketing toward only "better-for-you" products. This article argues that the overarching focus on the nutrient profile of foods (nutritionism) is wrong-headed: The slippage in terms from "better-for-you" foods to "healthy dietary choices" is problematic and also makes it difficult for children to identify the healthy choice. Nutritionism further works to sidestep important questions pertaining to the ethics of food marketing, not to mention the way that marketing foods as fun and entertainment works to encourage overeating in children.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.248 · 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