Reasons for food choices in nursing university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Food choice is a complex process that involves sensory and non-sensory characteristics, therefore, sociocultural, and psychological factors. The purpose of this study was to describe the reasons for food choices of nursing university students.Methods: Cross-sectional study with 286 university students of the nursing course at a public university in Salvador/BA. Data were obtained by applying sociodemographic and academic life characterization instruments. The reasons for food choices were evaluated by the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ). The data were analyzed in percentages and the reasons for food choices by calculating the unweighted mean of each factor.Results: There was a predominance of females (90.2%), unmarried with partners (90.9%), black race/color (87.8%). and the mean age was 23.4 years old (sd = 4.4). The majority of the students had semester load between 401 and 500 hours (58.8%) and attended university in two or more shifts (80.4%). Among the nine dimensions of the instrument, Sensory Appeal (x̄ = 3.35), Price (x̄ = 3.27) and Health (x̄ = 3.18) were the three most important for food choice. The familiarity and ethical concern factors were the least considered. Considering the FCQ items, the students chose the foods first because they were tasty (x̄ = 3.52), healthy (x̄ = 3.47) and of good price (x̄ = 3.40).Conclusions: For the students, the sensory appeal was the main reason for choosing food, being more relevant than price and health. Thus, there is need to consider the supply of healthy, attractive, and affordable foods in the university environment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".