What Do the ‘Breadwinners’ Do? Understanding Fathers’ Roles in Family Food Work in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of global concern about children’s weight and health, this study aims to investigate the extent to which Australian fathers are involved in family food work which includes feeding the family, and associated tasks such as shopping, food selection, planning meals, preparing, cooking, and cleaning up. It seeks to identify whether fathers consider children’s ‘healthiness’ and weight gain when performing these tasks, and what, if any, nutritional information resources they accessed. A qualitative exploratory study using semi-structured face-to-face interviews was conducted with eight fathers aged between 25 to 50 years living in the Australian Capital Territory. Participants discussed their roles in food provisioning and their perceptions of the food work process. A commitment to equally sharing domestic tasks between partners was frequently acknowledged amongst participants, despite the persistence of performative gendered norms. Male participants also discussed some of the constraining factors influencing their involvement in food provisioning. These included time scarcity, working commitments and cost. Whilst nutrition was considered when selecting and preparing food, most participants reported that they had not accessed or received nutritional and health information for their children. These findings provided insights into fathers’ perceptions of their roles and responsibilities of healthy food provisioning. Furthermore, this study suggests that public health researchers and health promoters should adapt their efforts to include fathers in education about the nutritional content of food for primary aged children, given the apparent paucity in these resources.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".