Free school meals, diet quality and food insecurity in secondary school students: protocol for a multiple-methods study the CANTEEN study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Food insecurity is increasing in the UK, impacting choice and diet quality. The current means-tested free school meals (FSM) policy was put in place to address dietary inequalities and food insecurity in school children. In secondary schools, approximately 20% of students who are eligible and registered do not take their FSM. Working across a range of schools that have variable levels of FSM uptake, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the current means-tested FSM policy in UK secondary schools on diet and food insecurity outcomes, understand what factors are associated with uptake and test the potential impact of any proposed policy change.Secondary schools (n=32) in both Northern Ireland and the Midlands region of the UK are being recruited into the study. Data will be collected from school staff, governors, students and parents via questionnaires, as well as observational data of school eating environments. Qualitative data will be collected in selected case study schools (n=6-8). Multilevel modelling will be undertaken to evaluate the association between FSM uptake and fruit and vegetable intake, overall diet quality and food insecurity in all students. Economic evaluation will be conducted using a cost-utility approach. The effect of policy change will be modelled and school factors associated with FSM uptake explored using multiple methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from Queen's University Belfast Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethical Committee (MHLS 23_55). Findings will be disseminated to key national and local agencies, to schools through reports and presentations, and to the public through media and open access publications.
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 | 0.054 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.020 |
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".