MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027541214 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v63i0.17817

Body proportions in healthy adult Inuit in East Greenland in 1963

2004· article· en· W2027541214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stig Andersen, Gert Mulvad, Henning Sloth Pedersen, Peter Laurberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyDemographyPhysical geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: It is important to know the starting point when describing changes in Inuit in transition. STUDY DESIGN: The original charts of 1,852 individuals from the epidemiological investigation in East Greenland around 1963 performed by Littauer and colleagues were recovered recently. They included height, weight and a physical investigation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The focus of this paper was adult Inuit body proportions in 1963 by ten-year age groups excluding participants with disabilities affecting body build. Relatively stable values were seen in both genders with age. Median values in men/women aged 20 years and above were: height 164/153.5 cm, weight 64/54 kg and BMI 23.7/23.1. Men aged 50 years and above had a little lower height and weight than young men. Women aged 40-49 years had a higher weight and BMI, but this evened out in the older age groups. Median BMI was relatively high compared to WHO definition. CONCLUSIONS: The data from 1963 gives a starting point for evaluating changes in Inuit body build and the prevalence of overweight. Furthermore, they indicate a need for Inuit-specific normal BMI delineation.

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)0.000
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 score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207