Nurturing Children's Healthy Eating: Position statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between eating a healthy diet and positive health outcomes is well known; nurturing healthy eating among children therefore has the potential to improve public health. A healthy diet occurs when one's usual eating patterns include adequate nutrient intake and sufficient, but not excessive, energy intake to meet the energy needs of the individual. However, many parents struggle to establish healthy eating patterns in their children due to the pressures of modern life. Moreover, healthcare providers often do not have the time or the guidance they need to empower parents to establish healthy eating practices in their children. Based on existing evidence from epidemiologic and intervention research, the Nurturing Children's Healthy Eating collaboration, established by Danone Institute International, has identified four key themes that encourage and support healthy eating practices among children in the modern Western world. The first - positive parental feeding - explores how parenting practices and styles, such as avoiding food restriction, allowing children to make their own food choices, and encouraging children to self-limit their portion sizes, can influence children's dietary intake. The second - eating together - highlights the link between eating socialization through regular family meals and healthful diet among children. The third - a healthy home food environment - explores the impact on eating practices of family resources, food availability/accessibility, parental modeling, and cues for eating. The fourth - the pleasure of eating - associates children's healthy eating with pleasure through repeated exposure to healthful foods, enjoyable social meals, and enhancement of the cognitive qualities (e.g. thoughts or ideas) of healthful foods. This paper reviews the evidence leading to the characterization of these nurturing themes, and ways in which recommendations might be implemented in the home.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.042 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.020 |
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".