The campus food environment and postsecondary student diet: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Examine the impact of the campus food environment on postsecondary students’ dietary behaviors (e.g., dietary intake) and food purchasing. Participants: Students currently attending a postsecondary institution, all ages and geographic locations included. Methods: A systematic search from January 2000-October 2022 was conducted in six databases using postsecondary education, food environment, and diet related keywords. Results: In total, 25 quantitative and 10 qualitative studies were extracted. All quantitative studies that conducted statistical analyses (n = 15) reported a statistically significant relationship between the campus food environment and dietary intake, including both positive and negative effects. All qualitative studies (n = 10) discussed students’ experience of the campus food environment influencing their diet. Conclusions: This review found moderate evidence that the campus food environment has an impact on postsecondary students’ dietary behaviors. A campus environment that has healthy foods accessible, affordable, and acceptable for postsecondary students may have a beneficial impact on students’ dietary intake.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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".