Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.031 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".