MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The prevalence of overweight and obesity in British Columbian Aboriginal adults

2011· article· en· W1939753783 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Heather J.A. Foulds, Shannon S. D. Bredin, Darren E. R. Warburton

Bibliographic record

VenueObesity Reviews · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsOverweightObesityMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthGeographyGerontologyInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overweight and obesity among Aboriginal populations has been a growing challenge within Canada. This investigation aimed to identify the prevalence of overweight and obesity within British Columbian adult Aboriginal populations including both on and off reserve individuals through direct measurement. Further, this study stratified the variations in these rates according to age, gender and geographic region. Weight, height and waist circumference (WC) were measured via standardized procedures, and body mass index (BMI) was calculated. The mean body composition indicators were above recommended for men (BMI = 30.3 ± 5.6 kg m(-2) ; WC = 104.2 ± 14.7 cm) and women (BMI = 30.9 ± 7.2 kg m(-2); WC= 99.3 ± 17.1 cm), respectively. Rates of obesity for men and women were similar, 48.4% and 48.7%, respectively, and showed significant increases with age. Abdominal obesity (AO) was significantly greater among female participants, 69.0% compared with 52.7% in men, while both genders also demonstrated significant increases in AO with age. Both obesity and AO rates were found to be significantly greater in the Northern and Interior regions of the province in comparison to the Vancouver/Lower Mainland region. Alarmingly high rates of obesity and AO were observed in this population in men and women at every age and geographic region.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObesity ReviewsSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207