Family Feeding Practices of Parents on Prince Edward Island: A Focus on Responsive Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The home environment and parental influence are strong predictors of eating behaviours in young children and can influence healthy development. The objective of this study was to describe the feeding practices of a sample of families on Prince Edward Island. Eleven parent participants were recruited, one-on-one interviews were held, and a thematic analysis was conducted. Conversations with parents revealed that the family feeding environment is influenced by a multitude of factors that change daily and need to be navigated based on the age of the child. Parents saw family meals as time together and an opportunity to model healthy eating behaviours; however, they faced several challenges at mealtimes, including perceived picky eating. Parents recognized their children's hunger and satiety cues, although they respected satiety signals more often if children ate what they perceived as a lot of food. Many parents used food as a reward to encourage their children to eat more but recognized that it could lead to the development of undesirable habits. Despite the complex factors that influence feeding, dietitians can work with families to foster a responsive feeding environment by encouraging family meals, recognizing and respecting hunger and satiety cues, and understanding typical changes in eating behaviours as children age.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".