Intergenerational Comparison of Food Parenting of Home Eating Behaviors of Schoolchildren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore intergenerational differences on key factors of food parenting practices (FPPs) related to home eating behavior of schoolchildren. DESIGN: In-depth interviews with social recognition theory-based semistructured interviews conducted from December 2016 to January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Primary caregivers of elementary schoolchildren from 23 households (16 parents, 14 grandparents) in 4 remote areas of Hualien, Taiwan. PHENOMENON OF INTEREST: Factors related to FPPs hindering micronutrient-dense food group consumption by schoolchildren in a remote area. SETTING: In-depth interviews were conducted at participants' houses. ANALYSIS: Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was performed to elicit studied phenomenon. RESULTS: Routine family meals provided adequate staple, protein, and vegetables but inadequate whole grains, dairy, fruits, and nuts. More parents provided breakfast composed of pan-fried and semiprocessed products made of refined flour and sugary beverages. Both parents and grandparents had ambiguous nutrition concepts and inconsistent FPPs but in different aspects. They both reflected expectations for assistance from local schools for nutrition and FPPs education to shape up healthy eating behavior of children. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Study findings pinpoint the strength and barriers of FPPs for primary caregivers. Implementing integrated nutrition education programs tailored for empowering nutrition literacy and FPPs is suggested to enhance the healthy eating behavior of schoolchildren in a remote area.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".