Are the health messages in schoolbooks based on scientific evidence? A descriptive study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most textbooks contains messages relating to health. This profuse information requires analysis with regards to the quality of such information. The objective was to identify the scientific evidence on which the health messages in textbooks are based. METHODS: The degree of evidence on which such messages are based was identified and the messages were subsequently classified into three categories: Messages with high, medium or low levels of evidence; Messages with an unknown level of evidence; and Messages with no known evidence. RESULTS: 844 messages were studied. Of this total, 61% were classified as messages with an unknown level of evidence. Less than 15% fell into the category where the level of evidence was known and less than 6% were classified as possessing high levels of evidence. More than 70% of the messages relating to "Balanced Diets and Malnutrition", "Food Hygiene", "Tobacco", "Sexual behaviour and AIDS" and "Rest and ergonomics" are based on an unknown level of evidence. "Oral health" registered the highest percentage of messages based on a high level of evidence (37.5%), followed by "Pregnancy and newly born infants" (35%). Of the total, 24.6% are not based on any known evidence. Two of the messages appeared to contravene known evidence. CONCLUSION: Many of the messages included in school textbooks are not based on scientific evidence. Standards must be established to facilitate the production of texts that include messages that are based on the best available evidence and which can improve children's health more effectively.
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 | 0.012 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".