Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Workplaces have been highlighted as a promising place to promote healthy food choices because of the recurrence of eating occasions (Wanjek, 2005). Beyond interventional research promoting healthier food choices in workplace restaurants, much remains to be understood regarding the specificities of eating choices of individuals during their worktime. Specifically, although working conditions seem likely to play a key role in workers’ eating choices (Raulio et al., 2007), the nature and extent of this association are unclear. Worktime organisation and workers’ control over their own schedule have been proposed to account for differences in the way workers interact with their workplace food environment (Massey & Saulais, in press ; Raulio et al., 2012). Objectives: The objective of this research is to investigate the relationships between two time-related working conditions, schedule flexibility and control over one's schedule, and workers’ lunch habits. Methodology: An ad-hoc online questionnaire was developed partly after the French Working Conditions survey. 1,139 French wage-earning workers, recruited from an online survey panel, were asked about their time-related working conditions, their behavior during lunch breaks over a two-week period (including non-food related behaviors such as taking care of personal matters during break) and their subjective experience of these lunch breaks in relation with time (such as feeling rushed during lunch break). Results: Workers with more flexibility in their schedule were more likely to report using lunch breaks as an adjusting variable in their workday, either by reducing it to compensate for their workload (p = .0001) or to attend to personal matters (p = .04). Perceived control over worktime organization also affected eating strategies during lunchtime. Conclusion: This research is one of the first to investigate possible relationships between working conditions and workers’ lunch habits. Although results provide support to a link between time-related working conditions and lunch behaviors, socioeconomic status (SES), which have been shown to impact workers’ behaviors, could be a confounding factor (Massey & Saulais, in press) , whose effect needs to be further investigated in controlled conditions.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".