Perceived health value of ready meals and side dishes: regional and gender differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine gender differences in consumption frequency, perception of health value and enjoyment associated with two categories of convenience foods – snacks, and ready meals and side dishes – among university students in French and English Canada, the United States and France. Design/methodology/approach In total, 376 women and 324 men replied to a self‐administered questionnaire that included general questions on attitude toward health and specific questions on consumption frequency, perception of health value and enjoyment attributed to products in both categories. Findings Variance analysis brought to light differences in gender within each regional group. Overall, perceived health value of ready meals and side dishes, while slightly negative, is less negative than for snacks, whereas greater enjoyment is attributed to snacks. For all regions combined, men attribute a less negative health value to snacks and ready meals and side dishes than women do, and derive more enjoyment than women from ready meals and side dishes, whereas women enjoy snacks more than men do. Originality/value This study clarifies the specific food habits of young people aged 18 to 25 regarding convenience foods, a rapidly growing category that could aggravate the trend toward obesity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".