Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having an obese parents or a parent who smokes are both associated with obesity in adolescents. According to the 2000/01 Canadian Community Health Survey, 5% of youth aged 12 to 19 years were considered obese. Boys were twice as likely to be obese as girls (6% and 3% respectively). In the same age group, 17% of boys and 10% of girls were overweight. Just over half (53%) of the girls perceived themselves as overweight, but were not. Living with an obese parent increased the likelihood for an adolescent to be overweight or obese. Eighteen percent (18%) of girls with an obese parent were overweight and 10% were obese, while for boys the figures were 22% and 12% respectively. There was also a relationship between the level of activity and prevalence of obesity in boys, but not in girls. Surprisingly, moderately active boys were 1.63 times as likely to be obese, while inactive boys were 1.55 times as likely. Age and having parents who smoke were also associated with obesity in boys, but not girls. Odds of being obese increased by 11% with every year of age for boys aged 12 to 19 years, and boys with parents who smoked daily were 1.6 times as likely to be obese than those whose parents never smoked. — Tara S. Chauhan, Research, Policy and Planning, CMA Figure
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".