MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307968812 · doi:10.1017/s1368980022002312

Adolescent exposure to food and beverage marketing on social media by gender: a pilot study

2022· article· en· W4307968812 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ashley Amson, Elise Pauzé, Lauren Remedios, Meghan Pritchard, Monique Potvin Kent

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial marketingFood marketingSocial media marketingSocial mediaGirlPsychologyAdvertisingUnhealthy foodMarketingMedicineDigital marketingDevelopmental psychologyBusinessPolitical scienceObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: The objective of this research was to determine if, based on gender, adolescents were exposed to different marketing techniques that promoted food and beverages over social media. Design: A secondary analysis of adolescent boy ( n 26) and girl ( n 36) exposures ( n 139) to food and beverage marketing was conducted. Mann–Whitney U and Fisher’s exact tests were conducted to compare the number, healthfulness and the marketing techniques of exposures viewed by boys and girls. Setting: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Participants: Sixty-two adolescents aged 12–16 years. Results: Boys and girls were exposed to similar volumes of food marketing instances (median = 2 for both boys and girls, Mann–Whitney U = 237, P = 0·51) per 10-min period of social media use. More girls viewed products that were excessive in total fat compared to boys (67 % v . 35 %, P = 0·02). Boys were more likely to view instances of food marketing featuring a male as the dominant user (50 % v . 22 %, P = 0·03), appeals to achievement (42 % v . 17 %, P = 0·04), an influencer (42 % v . 14 %, P = 0·02) and appeals to athleticism (35 % v . 11 %, P = 0·03), whereas girls were more likely to view instances of food marketing featuring quizzes, surveys or polls (25 % v . 0 %, P = 0·01). Conclusions: Food and beverage companies utilise marketing techniques that differ based on gender. More research examining the relationship between digital food and beverage marketing and gender is required to inform the development of gender-sensitive policies aimed at protecting adolescents from unhealthy food marketing.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.242 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations39
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207