Food Safety Education Needs of High‐School Students: Leftovers, Lunches, and Microwaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We explored priority areas of food safety education needed by high-school students within Ontario, Canada. METHODS: We analyzed transcripts from semistructured interviews with 20 experts in food safety, food safety education in youth, and high-school education in Ontario. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify priority food safety education needs. RESULTS: We identified 4 priority action areas for food safety education targeting students: how to safely do the things they typically do with food; how to keep themselves and their kitchens clean and safe; how microorganisms grow and how they can result in foodborne disease; and how to keep food out of the "danger zone" 4°C to 60°C (40° F to 140° F). The results indicate that students need specific education around the use of microwaves, consumption of convenience meals, preparing and handling foods at school events, and safe transportation of food for lunches, school trips, and sporting events. CONCLUSIONS: High-school students need food safety education specific to their usual interactions with food, including the foods, tools, and settings students regularly encounter. Delivery of food safety education should emphasize sequences of safe food-handling behaviors for specific food interactions, such as reheating a meal in the microwave, rather than traditional food safety concepts, such as temperature abuse.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".