Biological requirements or social expectations? Entanglements of sex and gender in nutrition policies in Ontario secondary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: An increasing number of nutrition policies have been implemented in Ontario schools as part of a concerted effort to address students’ well-being. This article explores understandings of biological differences in nutrition requirements between young men and women and the extent to which these differences are (re)produced in social eating behaviours and food pedagogies. Setting: A suburban school (grades 9–12) located in the Greater Toronto-Hamilton Area in Ontario, Canada. Method: Critical policy analysis combined with 13 focus groups of students (13–18 years old) in one Ontario school. A biopedagogical lens was used to analyse how young people develop and deploy their own reasoning and question the messages they receive about expected behaviour. Results: Focus group discussions suggest that dominant discourses and constructions about sex/gender are reproduced within the school environment, which has implications for the effectiveness of nutrition policies in schools. Furthermore, differences between young men and women’s eating behaviours were found to be contradictory to biopedagogical instructions from educational institutions and governmental agencies. For some young people, the pedagogical messages received are limited in their effectiveness because young people have not been convinced that it is worth risking their social status or because their content is contrary to messages received from media or their peers. Conclusion: Incorporating student voice in the creation of educational policy will assist health educators and school officials to understand sex/gender influences on the behaviour of students in terms of financial considerations, peer influence and social image. Optimising student voice to understand how they themselves may contribute to the implementation of policies will in turn increase the policies’ effectiveness.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".