Family Perspectives on Packing a Low-Waste and Nutritious School Lunchbox
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore family perspectives on food, packaging, and waste in lunchboxes, and the everyday practices of lunchbox packing and consumption. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative study using semistructured interviews guided by a critical realist epistemology. SETTING: Online interviews with South Australian families. PARTICIPANTS: Self-selected sample of 16 parents (94% mothers) and their children aged 8-12 years in primary school grades third through sixth (60% female) from public (75%) and private schools (25%) across medium (38%) and high (62%) socioeconomic backgrounds. PHENOMENON OF INTEREST AND VARIABLES: Factors influencing preparation of a nutritious and low-waste school lunchbox. ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed inductively using a reflexive thematic approach to identify major themes. RESULTS: Three major themes were generated: (1) extrinsic factors and school environment structures, (2) intrinsic factors and a Hierarchy of Motivations, and (3) responsibility for change. External factors influenced familial lunchbox packing practices, whereas personal priorities shaped food and packaging choices. Families emphasized shared responsibility for improving nutrition and reducing packaging between parents, schools, and broader systems. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This study provides updated insights into family lunchbox practices. Preexisting challenges in lunchbox practices deter prioritization of environmental sustainability. School-level initiatives should address barriers and leverage enablers to support families. Further research is needed to integrate nutrition and sustainability agendas and clarify responsibility for driving change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".