Use of food labels and beliefs about diet–disease relationships among university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to measure the reported use of nutrition information on food labels by a population of university students and to determine if label users differed from non-users in terms of gender and specific beliefs related to label information and diet-disease relationships, specifically fat and heart disease and fibre and cancer. DESIGN: A single-stage cluster sampling technique was used. Data was obtained using a self-administered, validated questionnaire. SETTING: The present investigation took place at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada in the autumn of 1997. SUBJECTS: : A total of 553 students in randomly selected classes in the College of Arts and Science took part in the survey (92% response rate). The sample consisted of roughly equal numbers of males and females, most between the ages of 18 and 24. RESULTS: There were approximately equal numbers of label users and non-users among males, while label users outnumbered non-users by almost four to one among females. The importance of nutrition information on food labels was the only belief that differed significantly between label users and non-users for both sexes. For females, no other beliefs distinguished label users from non-users. However, for males, significant differences were found between label users and non-users on the beliefs that nutrition information is truthful and that a relationship between fibre and cancer exists. CONCLUSIONS: Females appear to use food labels more often than do males. The only consistently observed difference between label users and non-users (male and female) was that users believed in the importance of nutrition information on food labels while non-users did not.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".