Parents’ perceptions of children's weight: the accuracy of ratings and associations to strategies for feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general objective of this study was to assess parents’ perceptions of their preschooler's body weight, and the association between children's current weight status and parental feeding strategies. A sample of 150 parents of three- to five-year-old children (72 girls and 78 boys) completed questionnaires on sociodemographic information, body-size perception of their child, and feeding practices information. Children were classified into weight categories according to body mass index scores. Results showed that: (1) parents of children who were overweight were less accurate in determining their child's body size, (2) parents who did perceive their child's body size accurately reported being more concerned with their child's eating habits and weight when this child was actually overweight, (3) parents who were accurate in perceiving their child's weight reported using more food restriction than parents who were inaccurate, and (4) parents of girls reported significantly more monitoring of sweets and snack food consumption than parents of boys. Prevention programmes should be implemented in early childhood and include parent education components.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".