Weight Status Underestimation among Canadian Adolescents: An Important and Frequently Overlooked Aspect of the Childhood Obesity Epidemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Overweight adolescents frequently fail to recognize that they are overweight. This project examines the magnitude of weight status underestimation among overweight adolescents and identifies predictors of this underestimation.\nMethods: Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (2001-2010) were used. Overweight adolescents (N=11,452) reporting they were underweight or about right were classified as underestimating their weight. The time trend in underestimation and effects of individual-level characteristics on underestimation were examined using logistic regression. Multilevel analysis examined the effect of weight status of community-based reference groups.\nResults: For every 5 overweight male adolescents, 3 underestimated their weight; 2 of 5 overweight females underestimated. Exposure to overweight explained some of the variation in underestimation across communities among females.\nConclusions: Weight status underestimation is a significant problem among overweight adolescents. Understanding how adolescents perceive their weight is an important and novel concept in maximizing the effectiveness of current approaches to adolescent obesity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".