Influence of the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide on the Food Environment in Childcare and Early Learning Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study investigated the potential influence of the 2019 Canada’s Food Guide (CFG) on the eating environment and food provided in early learning and childcare centres across Canada. Methods: Directors of childcare centres were invited to complete an online survey about their awareness and adoption of the 2019 CFG and submit their menus for analysis. Results: Twenty-five directors completed the survey, and eighteen cycle menus were analyzed. Frequency and the types of foods offered in childcare centres were assessed. Ninety-two percent reported being aware of the changes in the food guide. Many challenges including the lack of support and resources, cost of food, and food reluctance could affect their ability to apply the changes, especially the incorporation of plant-based protein and the uncertainty around the amount of dairy products to provide. Menu analysis indicated frequency of offering items from the various food groups. Vegetables were mostly offered during lunchtime with an average offering rate of 4.83 ± 0.24 times per week. Conclusion: Representatives of early learning and childcare centres identified having difficulties in interpreting and applying the changes in the 2019 CFG. Dietitians have the knowledge and skills required to support childcare centres through training opportunities, workshops, toolkits, and advocacy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".