Peer-Led Culinary Skills Intervention for Adolescents: Pilot Study of the Impact on Knowledge, Attitude, and Self-efficacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact and feasibility of a culinary skills intervention for adolescents led by peer educators compared with adult educators. METHODS: Adolescents (aged 11-14 years) were randomized to peer educator (n = 22) or adult educator (n = 20) groups and attended 2 2.5-hour culinary skills lessons addressing knife skills, cooking methods, and recipes. Knowledge, attitude, and self-efficacy measurements were completed before and immediately after the intervention and at 3 and 6 months after the intervention. Fidelity checklists assessed the feasibility of program delivery. Differences within and between groups over time were assessed using ANOVA. RESULTS: Adolescents (n = 42) increased knowledge (3.7 ± 2.6 points [mean ± SD]; P < .001), attitude (0.8 ± 4.5; P < .05), and self-efficacy of cooking (2.6 ± 5.3; P < .001) and cooking method (1.7 ± 4.6; P < .01) after intervention. Peer and adult educators were equally able to deliver the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Peers and adults can feasibly lead a culinary skills program for adolescents that increases knowledge. To affect attitude and self-efficacy, additional training of peer educators may be needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".