The Association of Television Viewing with Snacking Behavior and Body Weight of Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigate whether TV viewing and recognition of snack food advertisements were associated with snack food consumption and the odds of being overweight or obese. DESIGN: Cross-sectional internet-based survey. SETTING: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. SUBJECTS: Undergraduate university students aged 18 to 25 years (N = 613). MEASURES: Self-reported TV viewing, energy-dense snack consumption, snacking while viewing TV, and body weight. ANALYSIS: Hypothesis testing was completed using multiple analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, and logistic regression. RESULTS: Students reporting medium or high TV viewership snacked more frequently while watching TV and recognized more advertising than students who were considered low viewers. High viewers also reported more consumption of energy-dense snacks than low viewers. Snacking frequency appeared to be related to TV viewing and place of residence, but the association between snacking frequency and TV viewing was not accounted for by advertising. Conversely, the association between TV viewing and consumption of energy-dense snacks was accounted for by advertising recognition. Finally, male students (odds ratio [OR], 2.78; 99% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-4.59) and medium (OR, 3.11; 99% CI, 1.37-7.08) and high (OR, 5.47; 99% CI, 1.97-15.16) TVviewers had higher odds of being overweight or obese. CONCLUSIONS: Associations were found among TV viewing, energy-dense snack consumption, and snacking behavior, and between TV viewing and body weight status.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".