Are snacking patterns associated with risk of overweight among Kahnawake schoolchildren?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand more specifically how the quality, quantity and frequency of snack food consumption differs in different BMI categories. DESIGN: Four hundred and forty-nine school-aged children (grade 4-6) from a Kanien'kehaka (Mohawk) community provided a 24 h recall and their height and weight in 1994, 1998 and 2002, in three independent cross-sectional samples. Food consumed between two consecutive meals was defined as a snacking occasion. ANOVA and chi2 tests were used to compare food choices between BMI categories according to food quality criteria and food groups in 2006. Logistic regression models were performed to compare results between normal-weight children and those at risk of overweight and between normal-weight and overweight children. RESULTS: Energy intake from snacks tended to be higher for children at risk of overweight, compared with the other two BMI categories. Food groups with a higher energy density were also consumed more frequently by these children, with larger average portions of cereal bars (P < 0.05). Except for dessert consumption, which was less frequent among overweight children, no other variable distinguished risk of overweight in the two logistic regression models tested. CONCLUSIONS: Differences detected in snack food intake between normal-weight children and children at risk of overweight could explain in part the relationship between food choices and risk of overweight. Studies of dietary differences in conjunction with body weight would benefit from considering children at risk of overweight and normal-weight children, rather than children with excess weight only.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".