MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997114209 · doi:10.4061/2011/179124

Moving Beyond the Stigma: Systematic Review of Video Games and Their Potential to Combat Obesity

2011· article· en· W1997114209 on OpenAlexaff
Stacey Guy, Alexandria Ratzki‐Leewing, Femida Gwadry‐Sridhar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hypertension · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityStigma (botany)MedicineOverweightChildhood obesityVideo gameObesityPhysical activityMedical educationGerontologyMultimediaPsychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapySocial psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing epidemic proportions of overweight children in the United States presents formidable challenges for education and healthcare. Given the popularity and pervasiveness of video gaming culture in North American children, the perfect opportunity arises to investigate the potential of video games to promote healthful behaviour. Our objective was to systematically review the literature for possible benefits of active and educational video games targeting diet and physical activity in children. A review of English-language journal articles from 1998 to 2011 using EMBASE and PubMed was conducted. Thirty-four studies concerned with children, video games, physical, and/or nutritional outcomes were included. Results of these studies that showed some benefit (increased physical activity and nutritional knowledge as a result of gaming) demonstrate the possibility of video games to combat childhood obesity-looking beyond the stigma attached to gaming.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations129
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HypertensionSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207