An international study of fast-food dining perceptions: millennial parents, non-millennial parents, and peer judgement during fast-food family dining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to examine peer perceptions of a parent dining in a fast-food restaurant with their child. Design/methodology/approach A vignette approach was used to explore consumer assumptions and normative data using a four-country online survey of parents, with 1,200 respondents (300 from each of Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA). The study included qualitative and quantitative thematic analyses of the responses. Findings Family dining in fast-food restaurants was most often associated with an opportunity for family time together (25%), a treat (25%) and an unhealthy food decision (19%). For some, this is a normal meal that should not be judged (11%), for others, this is merely a meal of easy convenience (9%). Fathers, when depicted as the parent in the vignette, were more likely to be praised for spending time with their children, while mothers were more likely to be critiqued for making poor nutritional choices. Respondents from the USA viewed fast-food family dining more favourably than respondents from Australia, Canada or the UK. Social implications Despite rising obesity in these four countries, only 19% of respondents focused on the unhealthy element of the food choice, suggesting that perhaps this element is not on the forefront of consumer decision considerations. Originality/value This paper confirms parental peer perception differences, based on gender and country, regarding opinions on a child dining with a parent in a fast-food restaurant.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".