Are parents aware that their children are overweight or obese? Do they care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare children's actual weight status with their parents' perceptions of their weight status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study, including a self-administered questionnaire. SETTING: Seven elementary schools in Middlesex-London, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of pupils in grades 4 to 6 and their parents. Of the 770 child-parent pairs targeted, 355 pairs participated in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Children's weight, height, and body mass index (BMI). Parents' perceptions of their children's weight status, family demographics, and parents' self-reported body weight and height. The United States Centers for Disease Control's BMI-for-age references were used to define children's weight status (underweight, overweight, or obese). RESULTS: Response rate was 46%. Children's actual weight status (ie, 29.9% overweight or obese and 1.4% underweight) was different from their parents' perceptions of their weight status (ie, 18.3% overweight or obese and 17.2% slightly underweight or underweight). Factors such as children's sex and ethnicity and mothers' weight influenced parents' ability to recognize their children's weight status. Parents' misperceptions of their children's weight status seemed to be unrelated to their levels of education, their family income, or their children's ages. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of parents did not recognize that their children were overweight or obese. Effective public health strategies to increase parents' awareness of their children's weight status could be the first key steps in an effort to prevent childhood obesity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".