Parental Reports of Lunch-Packing Behaviours Lack Accuracy: Reported Barriers and Facilitators to Packing School Lunches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parents influence the foods their children consume and often provide proxy reports of this intake. One way parents exert this influence is by providing home-packed lunches. This study compared parental reports of foods packed in children's lunches with what was actually packed and identified parental barriers and facilitators to packing lunches. METHODS: Grade 3 and 4 student-parent dyads (n = 321) in 19 elementary schools in Ontario participated. Parental reports and actual packed lunch contents were collected via self-administered surveys and direct observation, respectively. Parental barriers and facilitators were obtained through open and closed survey questions. RESULTS: Median portions packed were significantly higher for sugar-sweetened beverages and snacks and significantly lower for fruits, fruit juice, vegetables, milk/alternatives, and meat/alternatives than parents reported. Packing a healthy lunch was "important/very important/of the utmost importance" for 95.9% of respondents, and 97.5% perceived their nutrition knowledge as "adequate/good/very good". Barriers to packing a lunch included: child's food preferences, time, finances, allergy policies, and food safety. Nutrition resources, observing other children's lunches, child's input, and planning ahead were identified as facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to improve packed lunches should move beyond parental nutrition knowledge and importance of lunch packing to address parental barriers and facilitators.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".