Responsive feeding values and practices among families across the Canadian Maritime provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children benefit from responsive feeding practices where their internal signals of hunger and satiety are valued and met with prompt, emotionally supportive, and developmentally appropriate responses. Using an online survey, this study describes responsive feeding values and practices among parents of young children (0–5 years) (n = 1039) across 3 Canadian Maritime provinces. Independent-samples t-tests and 1-way ANOVA were performed to determine the differences in survey questions related to the responsive feeding practices and values. First-time parents and parents with younger children report implementing more consistently some of the challenging responsive feeding practices, such as avoiding pressuring their children to eat, compared with parents with multiple children and parents with children ages 3–5 years. Parents often have well-intended reasons to encourage their children to eat; however, these can coincide with non-responsive practices with food such as pressuring, rewarding, and restriction. These coercive practices may be ineffective and counterproductive as they reinforce reasons to eat unrelated to appetite and self-regulation. Preschool and early feeding interventions that support parents in understanding normal child development, including typical eating behaviours and self-regulation, could help to equip them for challenging feeding experiences and encourage long-term responsive feeding practices. Novelty: First-time parents and parents with younger children report more consistently avoiding pressuring their children to eat, compared with parents with multiple children and parents with children ages 3–5 years. Parents often have well-intended reasons to encourage their children to eat; however, these can coincide with non-responsive practices such as pressuring, rewarding, and restriction.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".