Exposure and perceptions of marketing for caffeinated energy drinks among young Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine exposure to energy drink marketing among youth and young adults, and test perceptions of energy drink advertisements (ads) regarding target audience age and promoting energy drink use during sports. DESIGN: A between-group experiment randomly assigned respondents to view one of four energy drink ads (sport-themed or control) and assessed perceptions of the ad. Regression models examined marketing exposure and perceptions. SETTING: Online survey (2014). SUBJECTS: Canadians aged 12-24 years (n 2040) from a commercial panel. RESULTS: Overall, 83 % reported ever seeing energy drink ads through at least one channel, including on television (60 %), posters/signs in stores (49 %) and online (44 %). Across experimental conditions, most respondents (70·1 %) thought the ad they viewed targeted people their age or younger, including 42·2 % of those aged 12-14 years. Two sport-themed ads were more likely to be perceived as targeting a younger audience (adjusted OR (95 % CI): 'X Games' 36·5 %, 4·16 (3·00, 5·77); 'snowboard' 19·2 %, 1·50 (1·06, 2·13)) v. control (13·3 %). Participants were more likely to believe an ad promoted energy drink use during sports if they viewed any sport-themed ad ('X Games' 69·9 %, 8·29 (6·24, 11·02); 'snowboard' 76·7 %, 11·85 (8·82, 15·92); 'gym' 66·8 %, 7·29 (5·52, 9·64)) v. control (22·0 %). Greater reported exposure to energy drink marketing was associated with perceiving study ads as promoting energy drink use during sports. CONCLUSIONS: Energy drink marketing has a high reach among young people. Ads for energy drinks were perceived as targeting youth and promoting use during sports. Such ads may be perceived as making physical performance claims, counter to Canadian regulations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".