Exploring the Concern about Food Allergies among Secondary School and University Students in Ontario, Canada: A Descriptive Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to explore the perceived risk of food allergies among students in Ontario, Canada. We analyzed blinding questions (“I am concerned about food allergies”; “food allergies are currently a big threat to my health”) from three existing food safety surveys, given to high school and university undergraduate students (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">3</mml:mn><mml:mtext>,</mml:mtext><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">451</mml:mn></mml:math>) circa February 2015, using descriptive analysis, and explored how concern related to demographics and self-reported cooking ability using linear regression. Overall, high school students were neutral in their concern, although Food and Nutrition students specifically were significantly less concerned (<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">0.002</mml:mn></mml:math>) than high school students overall. University undergraduates were moderately unconcerned about food allergies. Concern was highest in younger students, decreasing between 13 and 18 years of age and plateauing between 19 and 23 years. Among students aged 13–18 years, concern was higher among those who worked or volunteered in a daycare and who had previously taken a food preparation course. Among students aged 19–23 years, concern was higher among females and those with less advanced cooking abilities. Concern was significantly correlated with perceiving food allergies as a personal threat. This study offers a first exploration of perceived risk of food allergies among this demographic and can guide future, more rigorous assessments.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".