Knowledge needs and the ‘savvy’ child: teenager perspectives on banning food marketing to children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food marketing to children is a powerful factor in the health of young people. In Canada, one proposed measure to protect young people is to ban all food and beverage marketing to children under age 13. Since policy initiatives should consider the voices of those directly impacted, we conducted focus groups with teenagers aged 12–14 – precisely those individuals who would be directly impacted by, or just over, the age threshold proposed. The majority of teenagers consulted were opposed to a ban on food marketing, framing food marketing as a way to meet their consumer needs. Such perspectives mirror the arguments made by the food industry, and suggest that teenagers’ self-identification as consumers trump questions of ethics or public health. Even though teenagers argue that marketing is often misleading, they do not view regulation as a solution – a view troubled by the fact that many of the teenagers underestimated their own vulnerability to marketing. The research points to the need for a more complex understanding of how food marketing messages are understood by teenagers, for a more robust media literacy education, and for the need to engage – not ignore – young people when it comes to issues of public health.
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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".