Children’s School-Day Nutrient Intake in Ontario: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study Comparing Students’ Packed Lunches from Two School Schedules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the caloric and nutrient values of packed lunch contents and consumption in the Balanced School Day (BSD) (two 20 min eating periods) versus the Traditional Schedule (TS) (one 20 min lunch). Foods consumed during school were assessed by direct food observation in 321 grade 3 and 4 students, aged 7−10 years, at 9 BSD and 10 TS elementary schools in Ontario. Packed lunch contents in the BSD were significantly higher than the TS in energy (3128.14 ± 1100.36 vs. 2658.98 ± 951.34 kJ, p < 0.001, respectively). Similarly, carbohydrates, total sugar, protein, fat, saturated fatty acids (SFA), calcium, iron, and sodium were significantly higher in the BSD versus TS packed lunches. Correspondingly, students in the BSD consumed significantly more energy, carbohydrates, total sugar, and SFA compared to the TS. Overall, lunches brought by students in the BSD schedule provided more energy across all macronutrients, with only a few micronutrients showing increased amounts, suggesting two 20 min eating opportunities could contribute to excess caloric intake during school, potentially contributing to the prevalence of childhood overweight and obesity in Canada. Furthermore, packed lunches in both schedules had excess amounts of nutrients of concern and much work is needed to ensure that children in Canada receive nutritious lunches at school.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".