Prospective associations between parental feeding practices and children's oral processing behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research demonstrated that faster eating rates are linked with increased intake of energy during a meal. Here, we examined whether within-meal parental feeding practices show cross-sectional and prospective associations with children's oral processing behaviours and whether the previously demonstrated association between faster eating rates and higher energy intakes varies by parental feeding practices. A subset (n = 155) of children and their mothers from the Growing Up in Singapore Towards healthy Outcomes cohort participated in an ad libitum meal at age 4.5 years. Children's oral processing behaviours (eating rate, bite size, chews per gram, oral exposure time, and meal duration) and parental feeding practices (autonomy-supporting and coercive prompts, restrictions, hurrying, and slowing) were recorded during the meal. Subsequently, 94 of the children participated in a follow-up meal without their mothers at age 6 years. Parental feeding practices were not consistently associated with child oral processing behaviours overall. However, exploratory post hoc analyses revealed some sex differences. The mothers of girls with faster eating rates, larger bite sizes, and fewer chews were more likely to use hurrying, slowing, and restrictions, but similar associations were not observed among boys. Children who had the most problematic eating style and were eating fast and for long experienced more restrictions, instructions to slow down, and prompts. Faster eating rates were linked with the highest energy intakes if children were additionally prompted to eat. Prospective analyses showed that children who were more often prompted using coercive techniques and less frequently hurried at age 4.5 years had faster eating rates at 6 years and a larger increase in eating rates between ages 4.5 and 6 years but did not consume more energy. Although the direction of these associations cannot be assumed, these exploratory analyses suggest sex differences in the associations between feeding practices and oral processing behaviours and highlight the potential role of parents in the development of children's oral processing behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".