A formative evaluation of the Eat Smart!: workplace Cafeteria Program at St. Peter's Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of the Eat Smart! Workplace Cafeteria Program in a hospital cafeteria in Hamilton, Ontario. Staff were primarily nurses and women between the ages of 40 and 50. The respondents' level of awareness of the program, attitudes towards the program, intentions to change behaviours and short-term behaviour change were assessed using a self-administered, mailed survey. The Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000) was used, resulting in a 51% response rate. Most respondents purchased meals, snacks and beverages regularly in the cafeteria, suggesting that exposure to the program was fairly high. Respondents identified many benefits of the program; they also suggested areas of the program that could be further developed and improved. This evaluation is a precursor to other evaluations of this program (i.e., other process and outcome evaluations), and will inform the development and implementation of other cafeteria and similar programs.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".