MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adolescent Time Use, Eating Habits, and Obesity

2005· article· en· W1985973199 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Margo Hilbrecht, Jiří Zuzánek

Bibliographic record

VenueLoisir et Société / Society and Leisure · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderweightOverweightScreen timeObesityBody mass indexNormal weightMedicineAdolescent healthPopularityGerontologyPsychologyPopulationDemographyLeisure timePhysical activityEnvironmental healthPhysical therapySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rising obesity rates among Canadian adolescents have created concerns about population health and implications for the health care system. As part of the Ontario Adolescent Time Use Study (OATUS) 2001/03, 2,113 students aged 12 to 19 reported on time use, physical health, well-being, social relationships, and academic performance. Students were classified by Body Mass Index into weight categories of underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese. Significant positive relationships were found between obesity and skipping breakfast, and watching television during family meals. Obese adolescents spent more time engaged in computer activities and watching television, and less time in physically active and social leisure. As well, they were bullied more frequently, reported having fewer friends, decreased popularity, and lower levels of self-worth. Normal weight adolescents reported significantly higher levels of self-assessed fitness, health, and had a more positive outlook for continued good health in the future. Normal weight teens also performed better academically and attributed greater importance to post-secondary education than obese teens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLoisir et Société / Society and LeisureSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207