Process evaluation of the Centrally Procured School Food Program (CPSFP) in Ontario, Canada: school-level perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the implementation of the Centrally Procured School Food Program (CPSFP)-a free, universal, volunteer-led snack program for elementary school children. To assess participants' perceptions and experiences with the CPSFP, interviews were conducted in school-level participants (n = 33) using a semi-structured interview guide. Fifteen on-site visits also were conducted at each school to observe implementation practices. Quantitative data were obtained through a general information form where participants provided school characteristics and weekly logbooks where they described program operations and food quality. Most participants expressed positive perceptions of the CPSFP, identifying it as a valuable program for their students. Successful program implementation was associated with an appreciation for the CPSFP and the participation of the school community. Challenges to program implementation included concerns with the volume and types of food provided, issues with classroom food delivery and distribution and communication challenges. Suggestions for improvement included building capacities and enhancing student engagement in the program. Participants provided an in-depth assessment of the implementation of the CPSFP. The lessons learned and suggestions provided may help not only enhance the reach, feasibility and fidelity of the CPSFP, but inform the best practices for similar programs.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".