Advertising expenditures across media on food and beverage products heavily advertised on youth-appealing television stations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research estimated and characterized advertising expenditures on food products heavily advertised on youth-appealing television stations in Canada in 2019 overall, by media, by food category, and compared expenditures in two policy environments (Quebec and the rest of Canada, excluding the territories) and on "healthier" versus "less healthy" products. Advertising expenditure estimates for 57 selected food categories promoted on television, radio, out-of-home media, print media, and popular websites were licensed from Numerator. Sixty-one products or brands were identified as heavily advertised on youth-appealing stations and classified as "healthier" or "less healthy" based on a nutrient profile model proposed by Health Canada. Total expenditures and expenditures per adolescent capita were calculated. Approximately, $110.9 million was spent advertising food products heavily advertised to adolescents in Canada in 2019, with television accounting for 77% of total expenditures and fast food restaurants accounting for 51%. Most expenditures (77%; $80.6 million) were devoted to advertising "less healthy" products. In Quebec, advertising expenditures on examined products were 23% lower per capita ($45.15/capita) compared to the rest of Canada ($58.44/capita). Advertising expenditures in Quebec were lower for energy drinks (-47%; -$0.80/capita) and candy and chocolate (-41%; -$1.00/capita) and higher for yogurt (+85%; +$1.22/capita) and portable snacks (+25%; +$0.15/capita). Quebec's restriction of commercial advertising directed to children under 13 may explain lower per capita advertising expenditures on some "less healthy" foods heavily advertised to adolescents in Quebec. Nevertheless, this spending remains high in Quebec and nationally. Continued monitoring of these expenditures is warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".