Acceptability, Helpfulness, and Utility of the Healthy Lunch Box Booklet (HLBB) for Parents and School-Age Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: School lunches are of poor nutritional quality in Canada. Parents play an important role in the preparation of school lunches for young children. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability and helpfulness of the Healthy Lunch Box Booklet (HLBB) to support parents in packing healthy school lunches for their children. Methods: The HLBB was distributed at four schools in London, Ontario to students in full-day Kindergarten to Grade three. Parents were asked to complete an online survey from April to November 2019. Results: Parents (n = 58) reported the HLBB to be helpful (96.3%) and found the sections on new school lunch and snack ideas and nutritional information (e.g., label reading) particularly useful. Some parents also stated that the HLBB created opportunities to interact with their children regarding school lunch preparation. In terms of perceived impacts, parents reported increased confidence (68.6%) and learning something new (79.6%) about school lunch preparation and felt that their children’s diet was impacted accordingly. Conclusions: The HLBB was found to be an acceptable and useful nutrition resource that supports parents in packing healthy school lunches for their children and therefore warrants further study.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".