Food literacy competencies: A conceptual framework for youth transitioning to adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The modern foodscape has changed dramatically in recent decades in terms of where, what, how and with whom we eat. This has been facilitated by a transition from traditional, healthy and basic foods prepared in the home to ultraprocessed, unhealthy foods requiring little planning and preparation prior to consuming. Consequently, many youth lack the food literacy (knowledge, skills and critical perspectives) necessary to be well and minimize their risk of obesity and chronic diseases, in the context of a complex food system. The specific dimensions of these knowledge, skills and dispositions, however, are unknown. This study identified critical food literacy competencies required by youth as they transition to independent adulthood.Design: This study employed a Delphi methodology to achieve consensus statements on critical food literacy competencies within a framework encompassing cognitive, psychomotor and affective dimensions.Participants: A panel of 41 experts including dietitians, teachers and college/university students participated in in‐depth interviews.Analysis: Results were thematically analysed and incorporated into two subsequent surveys completed by panel members. Rater agreement was set at 75% agreeing/strongly agreeing with survey items. A panel subgroup further delineated results into competency statements.Results: Within the themes of “confidence and empowerment,” “joy and meaning” and “sustainable and equitable food systems,” 16 broad competency areas, and 59 specific competencies were identified. These were assembled into a Food Literacy Framework.Conclusion: Results can be used to support food and nutrition education in community settings as well as the formal school system, and to advocate for resources to support food literacy education programmes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".