Impact of replacing regular chocolate milk with the reduced-sugar option on milk consumption in elementary schools in Saskatoon, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excess sugar consumption in children has led to the removal of chocolate milk from some schools. Lower-sugar formulations, if accepted, would provide the benefits of milk consumption. In a cross-over trial, milk consumption was measured in 8 schools over 6 weeks in 2 phases: phase 1 provided standard 1% chocolate milk and plain 2% milk choices for the first 3 weeks, and phase 2 provided reduced-sugar 1% chocolate milk and plain 2% milk for the next 3 weeks. Milk selection and milk wasted were measured by sex and grade (1-8). Children chose chocolate milk more often than white milk in both phases (phase 1, 8.93% ± 0.75% vs. 0.87% ± 0.11% (p < 0.001), and phase 2, 5.76% ± 0.29% vs. 0.78% ± 0.14% (p < 0.001), respectively). Fewer children chose reduced-sugar chocolate milk in phase 2 (p < 0.001). A greater percentage of younger students (grades 1-4) than older students (grades 5-8) purchased milk in both phases (phase 1, 11.10% ± 0.81% vs. 8.36% ± 0.74%, p = 0.020, and phase 2, 8.47% ± 0.43% vs. 4.62% ± 0.40%, p < 0.001, respectively); older children drank more milk at lunch. Schoolchildren preferred chocolate milk over plain milk even when a reduced-sugar formula was offered; however, switching to reduced-sugar chocolate milk led to a decrease in the number of students choosing milk. Longer-duration studies are required to determine if students would purchase reduced-sugar chocolate milk at the same rate as they would purchase regular chocolate milk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".