Children and Youths' Perception of Food: An Evolutionary Concept Analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children's and adolescents' food experiences are inadequately understood. A concept analysis is needed to help advance a conceptual definition of children and adolescents' perception of food. AIM: This work aims to clarify the concept of food perception among children and adolescents following Rodgers's evolutionary method for concept analysis. METHODS: A search on two databases, CINAHL and PubMed, was conducted between October 2020 and April 2021. The key search terms used were: perception, awareness, recognition, child, adolescent, food, nutrition. Inclusion criteria were: English language, scholarly/peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020, studies of children and adolescents' perceptions of food using qualitative or quantitative or mixed methods. A total of fifteen articles that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. The coding process and thematic analysis followed the phases of Rodgers's Evolutionary Method. Thematic analysis revealed common themes related to the concept, attributes, antecedents, and consequences. RESULTS: Four attributes were identified, including food taste and appearance, availability, cost and convenience, time effort and nutritional value. The antecedents are parental, social, emotional, and cognitive development influences. The consequences include adequate nutrition, healthy lifestyle, growth, and malnutrition. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study exploring the concept of food perceptions among children and adolescents, examining the key elements that determine and influence this concept including the influences of culture. NURSING IMPLICATIONS: Further studies exploring the use of this concept among other disciplines and specific clinical settings are needed to allow nursing researchers to perform more tailored and valuable future interventions around this topic and this population.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".