Comparison of Responsive Feeding Practices in Child Care and Home Environments in Nova Scotia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The values, beliefs and practices between the family home and child care environment can play a role in shaping a responsive food environment for young children, but few studies have explored the differences across these settings. The purpose of this study was to compare responsive feeding practices in child care and home environments through the framework of the 2019 Canada Food Guide healthy eating recommendations. Methods: Nova Scotia families and child care providers completed an online survey on responsive feeding. Independent-samples t-tests explored the differences between family and child care respondents on variables related to the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide, including: food variety, mindfulness, eating with others, cooking more often, and enjoyment of food. A directed content analysis was used to code the open-ended qualitative questions. Results: Family respondents (n = 603) were more likely to report offering a variety of foods, repeated exposures to new foods, and asking children about fullness. Child care respondents (n = 253) were more likely to sit with children during meals and less likely to encourage children to finish their food. Conclusions: The results identify potential points of intervention, including the importance of increasing communication to ensure mutually supportive messages and environments for healthy eating.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".