MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586265848 · doi:10.3148/cjdpr-2016-037

Examining Guidelines for School-Based Breakfast Programs in Canada: A Systematic Review of the Grey Literature

2017· review· en· W2586265848 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Katelyn Godin, Sharon I. Kirkpatrick, Rhona M. Hanning, Jackie Stapleton, Scott T. Leatherdale

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGrey literatureGovernment (linguistics)Systematic reviewPromotion (chess)Program evaluationMedical educationMEDLINEMedicineHealth promotionEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical scienceFamily medicinePublic healthNursingPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

School breakfast programs are widespread and serve varying objectives regarding youth health promotion. Evidence-based guidelines for breakfast programs may be important in maximizing their effectiveness related to student outcomes, yet it is unclear what is available in Canada. A systematic review was conducted to identify and compare Canadian guidelines related to breakfast programs. Data sources included grey literature databases, customized search engines, targeted websites, and content expert consultations. Eligible guidelines met the following criteria: government and nongovernment sources at the federal and provincial/territorial levels, current version, and intended for program coordinators. Recommendations for program delivery were extracted, categorized, and mapped onto the 4 environments outlined in the ANGELO framework, and they were classified as "common" or "inconsistent" across guidelines. Fifteen sets of guidelines were included. No guidelines were available from federal or territorial governments and 4 provincial governments. There were few references to peer-reviewed literature within the guidelines and despite many common recommendations for program delivery, conflicting recommendations were also identified. Potential barriers to program participation, including a lack of consideration of allergies and other dietary restrictions, were identified. Future research should identify how guidelines are implemented and evaluate what effect their implementation has on program delivery and student outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.389
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.090 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207