MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402335468 · doi:10.1177/15598276241279223

Association of Parent and Child Intuitive Eating: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4402335468 on OpenAlexaff
Michaela L. Dowling, Madeline E. Hubbard, Richa Agnihotri

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Lifestyle Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAssociation (psychology)Healthy eatingPhysical activityPsychotherapistPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.383 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Lifestyle MedicineSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207