Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of school nutrition policies poses a challenge to dietitians as they work with schools to increase the availability of nutritious foods. An analysis of the implementation of the Food and Nutrition Policy for New Brunswick Schools, proclaimed by the department of education in 1991, revealed four factors that influenced implementation: selling food for profit, student choice, interpretation of the policy, and the approach to implementation. From 1997 to 1999, data were obtained from 50 participants at the provincial, district, and school levels through semi-structured interviews; supporting evidence was obtained through a review of pertinent documents. The policy goal was to develop good eating habits among schoolchildren. The policy objective to have all food services follow national guidelines for healthy eating was so controversial that implementation was inconsistent and had little impact on school foods. Opponents objected when the sale of certain foods was curtailed, felt the policy limited student choice, were unsure how to interpret it, and resented the department's top-down approach. Dietitians, who had minimal involvement with the New Brunswick policy, need to consider carefully how to work with educational agencies to combine support and pressure to foster the capacity and willingness of schools to implement nutrition policies.
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 | 0.108 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".