MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247736682 · doi:10.3138/cpp.38.2.265

Packaging Health: Examining “Better-for-You” Foods Targeted at Children

2012· article· en· W4247736682 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Charlene Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityBusinessQuality (philosophy)Unhealthy foodEnvironmental healthMarketingFood marketingAdded sugarFood productsFood scienceAdvertisingMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concerns over health and obesity have led to a range of “better-for-you” food products targeted at consumers. This analysis examines 354 supermarket foods targeted at children in Canada, assessing the nutritional quality and types of appeals of “better-for-you” packaged foods compared to “regular” fare. While “better-for-you” products fared better nutritionally (particularly for fat or sodium), high levels of sugar are evident in both categories. This analysis further examines some important considerations regarding both “health halos” and the promotion of food as “fun.” Overall, it reveals that products marketed to children as “better-for-you” are as much about marketing as they are about nutrition.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207