MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016711071 · doi:10.1136/ebn.10.2.58

Children who had experienced family food insufficiency were more likely to be overweight at 4.5 years of age

2007· letter· en· W2016711071 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christine Kurtz Landy

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightMedicinePediatricsDemographyGerontologyEnvironmental healthObesityInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dubois L, Farmer A, Girard M, et al . Family food insufficiency is related to overweight among preschoolers. Soc Sci Med 2006;63:1503–16.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What is the relation between family food insufficiency and overweight in preschool children? ### ![Graphic][5] Design: population based cohort study (part of the Longitudinal Study of Child Development in Quebec [LSCDQ]). ### ![Graphic][6] Setting: Quebec, Canada. ### ![Graphic][7] Participants: 1549 of a random sample of 2103 preschool children from the LSCDQ were included in the nutrition study. ### ![Graphic][8] Risk factors: family food insufficiency (based on mother’s response of “regularly or every month,” “>1/month,” “only during certain months,” or “occasionally but not regularly” to the following question: Have you or a member of your family not eaten adequately because the family had run out of food or money to buy food?), income insufficiency, socioeconomic status, annual gross income, and family … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSocial%2Bscience%2B%2526%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DSoc%2BSci%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DDubois%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D63%26rft.issue%253D6%26rft.spage%253D1503%26rft.epage%253D1516%26rft.atitle%253DFamily%2Bfood%2Binsufficiency%2Bis%2Brelated%2Bto%2Boverweight%2Bamong%2Bpreschoolers.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.socscimed.2006.04.002%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16777308%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.04.002&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16777308&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F10%2F2%2F58.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000239875800008&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207