Exposure to Food and Beverage Advertising on Television among Canadian Adolescents, 2011 to 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents represent a key audience for food advertisers, however there is little evidence of adolescent exposure to food marketing in Canada. This study examined trends in Canadian adolescents' exposure to food advertising on television. To do so, data on 19 food categories were licensed from Nielsen Media Research for May 2011, 2013, and 2016 for the broadcasting market of Toronto, Canada. The average number of advertisements viewed by adolescents aged 12-17 years on 31 television stations during the month of May each year was estimated using television ratings data. Findings revealed that between May 2011 and May 2016, the total number of food advertisements aired on all television stations increased by 4%, while adolescents' average exposure to food advertising decreased by 31%, going from 221 ads in May 2011 to 154 in May 2016. In May 2016, the advertising of fast food and sugary drinks dominated, relative to other categories, accounting for 42% and 11% of all exposures, respectively. The findings demonstrate a declining trend in exposure to television food advertising among Canadian adolescents, which may be due to shifts in media consumption. These data may serve as a benchmark for monitoring and evaluating future food marketing policies in Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".