MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995308187 · doi:10.1017/s1368980019003537

The nutritional content of children’s breakfast cereals: a cross-sectional analysis of New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada and the USA

2019· article· en· W2995308187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynne Chepulis, Nadine Everson, Rhoda Ndanuko, Gael Mearns

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Waikato
KeywordsSugarNutrientSaturated fatNutrition informationServing sizeBreakfast cerealTotal energyAgricultural scienceFood scienceGeographyAgricultural economicsAnimal scienceMedicineBiologyEconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Nutrition Information Panel (NIP) content, serving size and package size of children's ready-to-eat breakfast cereals (RTEC) available in five different Western countries. DESIGN: NIP label information was collected from RTEC available for purchase in major supermarket chains. Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U and χ2 tests were applied to detect differences between countries on manufacturer-declared serving size, total energy (kJ), total protein, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrate, total sugar, Na and fibre content. The Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criterion (NPSC) was used to evaluate the number of products deemed to be 'unhealthy'. SETTING: Supermarkets in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Children's breakfast cereals (n 636), including those with and without promotional characters. RESULTS: The majority of children's RTEC contained substantial levels of total sugar and differences were apparent between countries. Median sugar content per serving was higher in US cereals than all other countries (10·0 v. 7·7-9·1 g; P < 0·0001). Median fat and saturated fat content were lowest in Australia and New Zealand RTEC, while the Na content of RTEC was 60-120 % higher in the USA and Canada than in Australia and the UK (all P ≤ 0·01). CONCLUSIONS: Across all countries, there was a high proportion of RTEC marketed for children that had an unhealthy nutrient profile. Strategies and policies are needed to improve the nutrient value of RTEC for children, so they provide a breakfast food that meets nutrition guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207