Association of Parent and Child Intuitive Eating: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children's eating behaviors are dependent on childhood food experiences, which involve their parental feeding practices, home food environments, and modeling of eating behavior. Intuitive eating (IE) promotes eating based on internal hunger and satiety cues. IE has been associated with improvements in mental and physical health. There has been increasing interest in exploring the association between parent and child IE. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize current literature reporting on parent and child IE associations. Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched using keywords focusing on IE, parents, and children. Inclusion criteria were reporting on parental and/or child IE, and reporting on parent-child relationships. After screening, 15 studies were retained. From these, 3 main correlations were described. Parental IE was associated with child feeding, child weight concerns, and the home food environment. As well, environmental factors (i.e., family cohesion, food security) were associated with components of child IE. Moreover, IE was directly correlated between parents and children. Overall, this study highlights how child IE behaviors may be shaped by both parental IE and the broader environments that they are raised within. Additional high-quality studies are required to verify these findings.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".