MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2098629503 · doi:10.1139/h07-003

Think tank on school-aged children: nutrition and physical activity to prevent the rise in obesity

2007· article· en· W2098629503 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rena Mendelson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildhood obesityPsychological interventionObesityPhysical activityEnvironmental healthPsychologyPolitical scienceEarly childhoodGerontologyPublic relationsMedicineEconomic growthDevelopmental psychologyEconomicsPsychiatryPhysical therapyOverweight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise in childhood obesity has generated concern across a range of sectors. Stakeholders and experts in the area of children's health met at a Think Tank in Toronto organized by the Canadian Council for Food and Nutrition and the Program in Food Safety, Nutrition, and Regulatory Affairs at the University of Toronto to discuss the current evidence in place to inform the development of school policies to reduce childhood obesity. Although there is some evidence to suggest that school interventions may reduce obesity in children, there are other examples of programs that have had very little impact. The role of parents in the development of healthy eating and physical activity patterns is critical from the earliest stages of life and warrants further attention. Delegates agreed that we need ongoing input of experts and leaders from all sectors and fields to help us to effectively promote healthy lifestyles at schools and within the home, while respecting each child's need for safety, security, and respect.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations19
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→