Bibliographic record
Abstract
This purpose of this qualitative, descriptive study was to describe the perceptions of medical and nursing students towards obesity. This study utilized King's (1981, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997a, 1997b) ideas and nursing theory as a guide for achieving this purpose. The research was conducted with 28 medical and 102 nursing students attending three universities in Southern Ontario and one in Western New York. Students were given a survey containing six open-ended questions. The research objectives were answered by analyzing the themes that originated from the student's responses to the survey questions. Although the study findings identified similarities and differences in perspectives between the two groups of students, the theme that appeared most prevalent throughout student's writings was feeeling repulsed at the appearance of someone whom they perceived to be overweight. Both groups of students also perceived obesity as unhealthy and assumed that individuals who were overweight were inactive, lazy, and lacked self control. Further, the study's findings indicated that the majority of both groups of students had received minimal instruction on the etiology and treatment of obesity. Findings further demonstrated that students had limited clinical experiences in caring for, and/or treating patients who are overweight or obese.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".