Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine current regulatory initiatives on food marketing to young people and to highlight unique considerations when it comes to teenagers. Design/methodology/approach This paper integrates the policy and public health literature with the literature on childhood studies and consumer studies. Findings Since the policy goal is to mitigate the impact of food marketing on young people’s attitudes and behaviours, it is necessary to recognize the consumer competencies of teenagers and consider the social and symbolic meanings of food for them. It is suggested that radical media literacy, coupled with food literacy, is essential to navigating a complex food environment filled with promotional messages for ultra-processed foods. Research limitations/implications This analysis has implications for policy development. Practical implications Consideration of age – in terms of different developmental competencies, motivating factors and additional initiatives to support healthy eating (such as teaching media literacy skills) – is necessary to policy development related to food marketing to children. Originality/value Little research integrates the literature on food policy/regulation with the critical work on consumer studies/childhood studies. This commentary also directs attention to novel areas of consideration related to teenagers and food marketing.
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 | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".