Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article, based on longitudinal data, follows a sample of people who were aged 20 to 56 in 1994/95 to determine the percentage who made the transition from normal to overweight, or from overweight to obese by 2002/03. Characteristics that increased the chances of overweight people becoming obese are examined. DATA SOURCES: The data are from five cycles of the National Population Health Survey, 1994/95 through 2002/03. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Cox proportional hazards modelling was used to identify variables associated with an increased or decreased risk of becoming obese; 1,937 men and 1,184 women who were overweight in 1994/95 were selected. MAIN RESULTS: Close to a third (32%) of people who were aged 20 to 56 and of normal weight in 1994/95 had become overweight by 2002/03. During the same period, almost a quarter of those who had been overweight in 1994/95 had become obese. Among people who were overweight, the risk of obesity was relatively high for younger men and members of low-income households. Overweight men who smoked or who had activity restrictions had a high risk of obesity. Physical activity helped women avoid 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".