MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114439881

Obesity, overweight and ethnicity.

2005· article· en· W2114439881 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark S. Tremblay, Claudio E. Pérez, Chris I. Ardern, Shirley Bryan, Peter T. Katzmarzyk

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightObesityEthnic groupBody mass indexDemographyMedicineImmigrationLogistic regressionOddsOdds ratioPopulationGerontologyEnvironmental healthGeographyInternal medicineSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This article describes the prevalence of self-reported overweight and obesity, based on body mass index (BMI), by ethnicity and examines the influence of time since immigration within and between ethnic groups. DATA SOURCES: Results are based on data from two cycles of Statistics Canada's Canadian Community Health Survey, conducted in 2000/01 and 2003. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Weighted prevalences of overweight (BMI > or =25) and obesity (BMI > or =30) were calculated by sex and ethnicity for the population aged 20 to 64. Multiple logistic regression models were used to examine associations between overweight/obesity and ethnicity, and within and between ethnic groups based on time since immigration, controlling for age, household income, education and physical activity. MAIN RESULTS: Aboriginal men and women had the highest prevalences of overweight and obesity; East/Southeast Asians, the lowest. Independent of age, household income, education and physical activity, Aboriginal people had elevated odds of overweight and obesity, compared with Whites; South Asians and East/Southeast Asians had significantly lower odds. Recent immigrants (10 years or less) had significantly lower prevalences of overweight, compared with non-immigrants, but this difference tended to disappear over time.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations179
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207