Fathers' food parenting: A scoping review of the literature from 1990 to 2019
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While food parenting is a robust area of inquiry, studies have largely focused on mothers. Given the diversity of family structures today and increases in fathers' engagement in caregiving, fathers' food parenting warrants attention. OBJECTIVE: We present a scoping review of research on fathers' food parenting (1990-2019). Eligible studies included peer-reviewed research published in English documenting fathers' food parenting and presenting results for fathers separate from mothers. RESULTS: Seventy-seven eligible studies were identified. Most studies were based in the U.S (63.6%) and utilized a cross-sectional design (93.5%). Approximately half of studies used a validated measure of food parenting (54.5%) and slightly less than 30% utilized theory (28.6%). Many studies did not report information on fathers' residential status (37.7%) or their relationship to the target child (biological vs social) (63.6%). Content analysis of study findings showed that: fathers are involved in food parenting, but at lower levels than mothers; there are few consistent mother-father differences in food parenting practices; and fathers' controlling food parenting is linked with negative nutrition outcomes in children while responsive food parenting is linked with positive child outcomes. CONCLUSION: To better inform family interventions to prevent childhood obesity, future food parenting research with fathers should recognize the diversity of family structures and utilize prospective, theory-based, designs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it