Parental Awareness and Perception of Their Children’s Body Size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate parents’ misperception of their active children’s size. Subjects: One hundred and forty male or female parents and their children from a youth soccer league participated. Actual Child Body Mass Index (BMI) percentiles and BMI categories were compared to the results of a Body Size Estimation Task and lifestyles questionnaire results. Results: Parents underestimated the body size of their children and placed them in a lower BMI category than the children actually belonged in. As was the case in other studies children in the unhealthy or at risk to become overweight category where seen as a healthy weight. Unlike other studies, many healthy weight children were seen as underweight. Conclusions: An explanation of body size misperception and underestimation of body size may be “change blindness”. The growing prevalence of obesity in children may be better addressed by focusing on the parents’ apparent lack of concern about excess childhood weight and the parents’ identification of excess childhood weight as “just normal” rather than seeing excess weight as a potential problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".