Review of existing observational mealtime studies: Examining how parental feeding practices influence children's eating behaviours and weight status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essential role of parents in shaping their children's eating habits and, ultimately, their weight status is acknowledged but not well understood. Current recommendations for parental feeding practices are based on studies that gathered data via self-reported questionnaires. Other studies are also emerging that apply direct observation of family mealtimes to measure parental feeding practices and their impacts on children's eating behaviours and weight status. The purpose of this review is to summarise and assess the methodology and conclusions of the existing observational family-mealtime studies to demonstrate that the current literature is unrepresentative of the Canadian population, is inconsistent in its measures and conclusions and, therefore, is limited in its ability to inform feeding guidelines for Canadian families. However, direct observation of family mealtimes remains an essential strategy for advancing understanding of the influence of parental feeding behaviours on child eating and weight status. Studies should continue to be based on direct observation but should include more diverse populations and apply more consistent measures.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".