Exploring healthy vending contracts as a localized policy approach to improve the nutrition environment in publicly funded recreation facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Many Canadian publicly funded recreation facilities have an obesogenic environment. Researchers recommend food and beverage policies to change these environments, however further research is needed to distinguish effective policy approaches. A promising, localized policy approach not yet well evidenced is the use of vending machine contracts with health stipulations to improve nutrition environments. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether a sample of Canadian publicly funded recreation facilities with healthy vending contracts had healthier vending machine nutrition profiles than those facilities with conventional contracts. A secondary research objective was to explore the additional influence of policy quality on the health profile of vending machines. Methods: This quantitative study used results from the baseline assessment done of the broader Eat, Play, Live (EPL) initiative. Vending machine audits and questionnaires were completed in participating publicly funded recreation facilities with vending machines (N=46). Vending product profiles were assessed using the Brand Name Food List which categorizes packaged foods according to the BC Guidelines for Vending in Public Buildings. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine if there were significant differences in the health profile of vending products between facilities with healthy vending contracts and those without. Results: Facilities with healthy vending contracts had significantly healthier vending product profiles compared to facilities with conventional contracts. On average, significantly less availability of unhealthy (DNS) products represented these healthier profiles. Vending profiles did not significantly differ based on higher quality contract health stipulations although sample size limited conclusions about this. Conclusion: Facilities with health stipulated in their contract differed from those without health stipulations. This suggests that healthy vending contracts (even with relatively generic stipulations) may be supportive of improved nutrition environments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".