What parenting practices do US and Canadian parents use to encourage or discourage healthy eating among their 5–12 year-old children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the parenting practices that parents of 5-12 year-old children report using to encourage or discourage children's healthy eating and examined sex differences in parent's responses. A stratified sample of 135 parents in the US and Canada completed a semi-qualitative online survey (Jan-Feb 2014) (stratified by parents' sex, income, and ethnicity of each country). Parents provided short answers to questions regarding the strategies they or other parents used to encourage or discourage their children's healthy eating (5-12 year-old). The 2389 parent responses were coded by two coders with discrepancies triangulated. Data was qualitatively reviewed and log-linear analysis assessed whether responses varied by types of encouragement (encourage, discourage), sex of parent (male, female), and six dimensions of parenting practices (autonomy promotion, structure of the food environment, behavioral and educational, control, responsiveness, and consistency of the food environment). Parenting practices that were controlling or promoted structure were predominantly mentioned as a way to regulate children's eating behavior. Strategies that support children's self-regulatory processes, such as autonomy promotion and responsiveness, were infrequently mentioned. Sex differences in parenting practices emerged. Mothers mentioned autonomy promoting practices more often than fathers did. Fathers mentioned controlling practices more often than mothers did as a practice that discouraged healthy eating among children. The findings highlighted that parents need to gain a greater understanding of the practices that nurture healthy eating in children, such as autonomy supportive and responsive parenting practices, to better support children as they grow.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".