Associations between Coparenting Quality and Food Parenting Practices among Mothers and Fathers in the Guelph Family Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coparenting quality and food parenting practices have been shown to have a strong influence on child outcomes. However, little is known about whether coparenting quality may influence food parenting practices. This study aimed to investigate how coparenting quality is associated with both mothers' and fathers' food parenting practices. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 58 mothers and 40 fathers enrolled in the Guelph Family Health Study. The Coparenting Relationship Scale and the Comprehensive Feeding Practices Questionnaire were used to measure coparenting and food parenting practices, respectively. Linear regressions using generalized estimating equations were used to examine associations between coparenting quality and food parenting practices in mothers and fathers. Among mothers, higher coparenting quality was associated with lower use of food for emotional regulation, restriction of food for health, and child control of food intake and with higher encouragement of a balanced and varied diet, provision of a healthy home environment, and modeling of healthy eating behaviors. Among fathers, higher coparenting quality was associated with lower pressure to eat and with higher encouragement of a balanced and varied diet and provision of a healthy home environment. Coparenting quality is associated with food parenting practices among both mothers and fathers. Interventions aiming to improve food parenting practices should include fathers and should consider targeting parents' coparenting relationship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".