Exploring the environmental, personal and behavioural factors as determinants for university students’ food behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The research objective was to explore the environmental, personal and behavioural factors as determinants of university students’ food behaviour in Québec, Canada. A web‐based questionnaire including factors likely to influence eating behaviours was developed. The questionnaire described 16 profiles, each associated with a food choice determinant. The students’ living arrangements and sociodemographic profile were also obtained. Descriptive statistics, chi‐square tests and factor analysis were conducted. A total of 857 students participated in the study. Significant gender differences were noted as well as differences according to living arrangements (e.g., residence hall, apartment with a roommate, with parents or alone in an apartment). Significant relationships were also found between food insecurity and citizenship. Based on the factor analysis and the underlying constructs, four profiles describing different eaters were identified: the planet‐nutrition‐kitchen lover , the utilitarian lonely eater , the body‐driven eater and the mindless eater. The results suggest topics to take into account when developing nutrition interventions or nutrition‐based health prevention programmes. These topics include cooking skills, time constraints, commensality, food variety, pleasure, body concern, mindless eating and stress. Moreover, a marginal but worrisome food determinant is also discussed, namely food insecurity. The results suggest some components to strengthen or incorporate into future nutrition interventions, such as body satisfaction, body image and satiety. Strategies to decrease emotional eating and promote mindful eating are worthwhile considerations when developing a health promotion university programme. The heterogeneity of the living arrangements and how they relate to food behaviours are also of great importance. Lastly, it is crucial to provide food assistance programmes and services to students with financial limitations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".