Food and beverage promotions in Vancouver schools: A study of the prevalence and characteristics of in-school advertising, messaging, and signage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to provide a descriptive profile of food-related advertising, messaging, and signage in Vancouver schools and to examine differences in the prevalence and characteristics of promotions between elementary and secondary schools. All food-related promotions were photographed in 23 diverse Vancouver public schools between November 2012 and April 2013. Key attributes, including the location, size, and main purpose of each promotion, as well as the type of food and/or beverage advertised and compliance with provincial school nutrition guidelines, were coded. Descriptive statistics assessed the prevalence and characteristics of promotions. Cross-tabulations examined whether the promotional landscape differed between elementary and secondary schools. All secondary and 80% of elementary schools contained food or beverage promotions (median = 17, range = 0-57 promotions per school). Of the 493 promotions documented, approximately 25% depicted "choose least" or "not recommended" items, prohibited for sale by provincial school nutrition guidelines. Nearly 1/3 of promotions advertised commercial items (e.g., brand name beverages such as Pepsi), in violation of the Board of Education's advertising policies and only 13% conveyed nutrition education messages. Close to half of all promotions were created by students for class projects, many of which marketed minimally nutritious items. In Vancouver schools, food-related promotions are common and are more prevalent in secondary than elementary schools. Students are regularly exposed to messaging for nutritionally poor items that are not in compliance with provincial school nutrition guidelines and which violate school board advertising policies. Stronger oversight of food-related promotional materials is needed to ensure that schools provide health promoting food environments.
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 | 0.001 | 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".