School Beverage Contracts & Childhood Obesity: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to describe the issue of school beverage contracts and childhood obesity from the perspectives of a broad group of stakeholders. Specifically, the perspectives concerning contracts in two Ontario school boards in Canada's 2004-2006 sociopolitical environment were studied. This qualitative study utilized a case study approach to capture the opinions of many stakeholders. Open ended interviews with individuals representing twelve stakeholder groups resulted in five major interrelated themes: "Awareness & Knowledge," "Influences of Obesity & Co-morbidities," "Perceived Value of Beverage Contracts," "Accountability" and "Future Directions (For Shifting Norms). " Stakeholders suggested the use of multidisciplinary and comprehensive strategies to promote healthy choices in the school environment, which is thought to have positive implications for childhood obesity. This study is unique in that it looks at a common issue from a number of different perspectives and reports all viewpoints in an unbiased and clear way showing the similarities and differences of opinions. Information from this study has potential importance in informing future directions to prevent and reduce childhood obesity, especially as this issue relates to the creation of school beverage contracts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".