Television Time among Brazilian Adolescents: Correlated Factors are Different between Boys and Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of excess television time and verify correlated factors in adolescent males and females. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 2,105 adolescents aged from 13 to 18 years from the city of Aracaju, Northeastern Brazil. Television time was self-reported, corresponding to the time spent watching television in a typical week. Several correlates were examined including age, skin color, socioeconomic status, parent education, physical activity level, consumption of fruits and vegetables, smoking status, alcohol use, and sports team participation. RESULTS: The prevalence excess television time (≥ 2 hours/day) in girls and boys was 70.9% and 66.2%, respectively. Girls with low socioeconomic status or inadequate consumption of fruits and vegetables were more likely to have excess television time. Among boys, those >16 years of age or with black skin color were more likely to have excess television time. CONCLUSIONS: Excess television time was observed in more than two-thirds of adolescents, being more evident in girls. Correlated factors differed according to sex. Efforts to reduce television time among Brazilian adolescents, and replace with more active pursuits, may yield desirable public health benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".