Between-school variation and student characteristics associated with the accuracy of weight status perception among students: does the school a student attends impact his/her weight status perception?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has identified that perceived weight status is a better predictor of weight control behavior than actual weight status. The purpose of this study was to examine whether the accuracy of weight status perception varies across schools, and to identify the student-level characteristics associated with inaccurate weight status perception among 25,060 grade 9 to 12 students attending 76 schools in Ontario, Canada. Although the majority of adolescents (60.4%) had accurate weight status perceptions, multi-level logistic regression analyses revealed significant between-school variability in the accuracy of weight status perceptions for both males and females. School location and school-level socioeconomic status were the school-level variables analyzed. We identified that males attending urban or suburban schools were more likely to overestimate their weight status compared with males attending rural schools. Important student-level characteristics included grade, weight status, sports participation and social influences. Additional research is required to better understand both the school- and student-level characteristics associated with the accuracy of weight status perceptions among adolescents.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".