Unhealthy behaviours among Canadian adolescents: prevalence, trends and correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study examines (1) time trends in the prevalence of selected unhealthy behaviours among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, (2) the most commonly adopted combinations of unhealthy behaviours, and (3) socio-economic and sociodemographic correlates of unhealthy behaviours among adolescents. METHODS: A secondary analysis used data collected from 13 198 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) respondents in 2000/2001 and 11 050 CCHS respondents in 2007/2008. RESULTS: Although the proportion of adolescents consuming a healthy diet increased over the study period, about 50% are still consuming insufficient amounts of fruit and vegetables. In both cycles over one-third of adolescents aged 15 to 17 years reported drinking alcohol regularly. Income level, education level, sex, and language spoken at home were significantly associated with the odds of engaging in unhealthy behaviours among those aged 12 to 14 years, while income level was no longer associated with the odds of engaging in unhealthy behaviours among those aged 15 to 17 years. For both age groups, a language other than French or English spoken in the home was associated with a low risk of unhealthy behaviours. CONCLUSION: There was a general decrease in unhealthy behaviours among younger adolescents aged 12 to 14 years.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".