Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of healthy eating strategies in schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In June 2008, the Government of Alberta (Canada) released the Alberta Nutrition Guidelines for Children and Youth aiming to provide schools with a tool to help children and youth make healthy food choices. The purpose of this research was to investigate which factors influenced the early adoption and implementation of the guidelines. A multiple case study design was used. Three urban schools in Alberta were purposefully selected to be the focus of individual case studies. Eighteen key informants among school staff were interviewed; direct observations were also conducted. Content analysis was used to analyze the data. Personal factors (e.g. personal interests) commonly motivated school staff members to support the guidelines. The School Division had a pivotal role in the early adoption of the guidelines, mainly through the work of the superintendent. Changes in the school food environment were often described as healthy eating strategies in response to the guidelines. The work of health champions was identified as a factor that facilitated guideline implementation. In contrast, parents, who did not want to eliminate food choice, were described as a barrier. Overall, many healthy eating strategies were implemented within all three cases due to the guidelines. A health champion is important to overview healthy eating strategies in schools. This research was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".