Is Adolescent Body Weight Associated With Parental Beliefs About Overweight, Attitudes Towards Food, and the Home Environment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parents play a crucial role in the development of childhood overweight and also in controling overweight. This study investigated a broad set of parental factors, including general attitudes towards food (price, identity, cooking, ecology, mood, dieting, convenience, functionality), social cognitions concerning overweight (risk perception, self-efficacy for exercising and healthy eating, response efficacy for exercising and healthy eating) and characteristics of the home environment (restriction of snacks, regular family meals, parents involved in sports) and their association with their children’s zBMI, i.e. adolescents between 12-19 years old. In a non-clinical sample of 842 parent-adolescent dyads we found that the zBMI is most strongly and positively associated with parental dieting attitudes and negatively with parents’ self-efficacy to motivate their children to exercise. The zBMI is negatively and weakly associated with dislike of cooking, identification with the way of eating and the perceived benefit of healthy eating (response efficacy). Half of the parents assessed their children’s overweight and obesity correctly, while the other half underestimated it. No difference was found with respect to all investigated variables (general attitudes, social cognitions concerning overweight and home environment) between parents who correctly perceive and those who misperceive their children’s weight status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".