MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2339179101 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v8i3.67

Restricting Marketing of Unhealthy Foods: Should General Internists Engage?

2013· article· en· W2339179101 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Norm R.C. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGovernment (linguistics)Environmental healthConsumption (sociology)ObesityUnhealthy foodPopulationFood marketingMarketingBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unhealthy diet is the leading risk for death, years of life lost, and disability, causing an estimated 65,722 deaths and 864,032 life years lost in Canada in 2010. 1 Although the causes of unhealthy diet are complex, unhealthy eating habits start early in life, and unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children is consistently associated with unhealthy dietary behaviours and childhood obesity. Although there have been recommendations from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations urging countries to restrict such marketing to children as a population strategy to improve diet, the food industry continues to direct millions of marketing dollars to increase the sales and consumption of the very foods that contribute to disease burden. While many countries have heeded the WHO recommendations, in Canada, outside of Quebec, the food industry largely self-regulates its marketing of unhealthy food to children, with no government monitoring or oversight. The result is that Canadian children are extensively exposed to marketing of unhealthy food products that would not be allowed in several other countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0130.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207