MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986147050 · doi:10.1177/1757975914547546

Exploring the potential for internet-based interventions for treatment of overweight and obesity in college students

2014· article· en· W1986147050 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer Schwartz, Chris G. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Promotion · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightThe InternetPsychological interventionObesityDietingMedicineCollege healthDemographicsFamily medicineGerontologyMedical educationEnvironmental healthPsychologyWeight lossNursingDemographyInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of internet-enabled technology for seeking health information and resources in overweight/obese college students. PARTICIPANTS: College students (N = 706) in Vancouver, Canada surveyed in April 2012. METHODS: An online survey assessed socio-demographics, health behaviors, and use of internet-enabled technology. RESULTS: Eating habits, dieting and/or exercising to lose weight, and weight satisfaction differed by weight status (all p < 0.05). Of overweight/obese participants, 48% reported they would use online student health resources. When seeking general health information, 91% would use websites; 45% would use online videos; and 75% trusted information from government or health organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Overweight/obesity is prevalent among college students. The majority of overweight/obese students reported trying to lose weight and would use the internet for health information, especially if a website is associated with a health organization. The internet is a cost-effective channel for screening coupled with the delivery of tailored, evidence-based interventions for college students.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.336 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Health PromotionSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207