Development of Menu Planning Resources for Child Care Centres: A Collaborative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well-designed menus in child care centres include nutritious meals and snacks necessary for the optimum health, growth, and lifelong healthy eating behaviours of young children. With pending government food and nutrition standards, a need was identified for comprehensive, relevant, user-friendly menu planning resources. Therefore, guided by an action research model, this study identified current menu planning practices, determined the needs and expectations for menu planning resources, and developed menu planning resources that incorporate these standards and other relevant factors. Menu planners from regulated child care centres in Nova Scotia (n=330) were invited to participate by responding to an online survey and/or volunteering as a member of a collaboration group. Survey respondents (n=83) indicated that they wanted their menus to be more interesting, practical, and cost effective. Menu templates, sample menus, and costed recipes were the most requested resources. Two-thirds indicated a preference for webbased resources and about one-third expressed interest in an interactive blog. The collaboration group participants (n=21) met twice and provided valuable input for the development of a menu planning model, menu template, sample menus, recipes, and information sheets. The model unified the menu planning considerations and served as a framework for the Child Care Centre Menu Project website (http://www.msvu.ca/menuproject/). The follow-up evaluation indicated that approximately half of respondents (n=39) had consulted the website and that the sample menus were the most useful resource. The website, blog, and online survey enable ongoing development supported by input from the menu planners. The resources should be transferable, with minor adaptations, to other provincial child care centres, elementary schools, or even licensed senior care facilities.
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 | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".