This file contains all supporting tables.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div><p>Background</p><p>Children are frequently exposed to marketing on food packaging. This study evaluated the presence, type and power of child-appealing marketing and compared the nutritional quality of child-appealing vs. non-child-appealing Canadian packaged foods and examined the relationship between nutrient composition and marketing power.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Child-relevant packaged foods (n = 5,850) were sampled from the Food Label Information Program 2017 database. The presence and power (# of techniques displayed) of child-appealing marketing were identified. Fisher’s Exact test compared the proportion of products exceeding Health Canada’s nutrient thresholds for advertising restrictions and Mann Whitney U tests compared nutrient composition between products with child- /non-child-appealing packaging. Pearson’s correlation analyzed the relationship between nutrient composition and marketing power.</p><p>Results</p><p>13% (746/5850) of products displayed child-appealing marketing; the techniques used, and the power of the marketing varied ( 2.2 techniques; range: 0–11). More products with child-appealing packaging than with non-child appealing packaging exceeded Health Canada’s thresholds (98% vs. 94%; p < .001). Products with child-appealing packaging (vs. non-child-appealing) were higher in total sugars (median: 14.7 vs. 9 g/RA; p < .001) and free sugars (11.5 vs. 6.2 g/RA; p < .001), but lower in all other nutrients. There was weak overall correlation between marketing power and nutrient levels. Results varied by nutrient and food category.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>Unhealthy products with powerful child-appealing marketing displayed on package are prevalent in the food supply. Implementing marketing restrictions that protect children should be a priority.</p></div>
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) | 0.750 | 0.011 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".