Healthy Weights Interventions in Aboriginal Children and Youth: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence that Aboriginal children and youth in Canada and elsewhere are at higher risk of obesity and overweight than other children. However, there has been no review of healthy weights interventions specifically aimed at Aboriginal children. A structured search for peer-reviewed articles presenting and evaluating healthy weights interventions for Aboriginal children and youth was conducted. Seventeen articles, representing seven interventions, were reviewed to identify their main characteristics, evaluation design, and evaluation outcomes. Interventions included several large community-based programs as well as several more focused programs that all targeted First Nations or American Indians, rather than Métis or Inuit. Only 1 program served an urban Aboriginal population. None of the published evaluations reported significant reductions in obesity or overweight or sustained increases in physical activity, although some evaluations presented evidence of positive effects on children's diets or on nutrition knowledge or intentions. We conclude that broader structural factors affecting the health of Aboriginal children may limit the effectiveness of these interventions, and that more evidence is required regarding interventions for Aboriginal children in various geographic and cultural contexts in Canada including Inuit and Métis communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".