MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119200369 · doi:10.1177/1524839911405843

Perceptions of Employed Parents About Early Childhood Obesity and the Need for Prevention Strategies

2011· article· en· W2119200369 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pascale Morin, Marie-Andrée Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChildhood obesityObesityPerceptionMedicineLogistic regressionPopulationMeal preparationEarly childhoodGerontologyEnvironmental healthPsychologyFamily medicineDevelopmental psychologyOverweight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Responses to the increased prevalence of childhood obesity are merging, and employed parents will become targets for strategies designed to prevent childhood obesity. This study aimed at describing their perceptions of employed parents about childhood obesity and determining which prevention strategies they would need the most. In this cross-sectional study, 504 employed parents were recruited from 33 child care centers in Sherbrooke (Quebec, Canada) who completed a self-administered questionnaire on their perceptions about childhood obesity and the need for prevention strategies. Logistic regression was used to explore differences in needs for prevention strategies according to participant characteristics. Most participants were female, aged 32.9 ± 4.9 years, and perceived childhood obesity was an important problem. The prevention strategies that seemed most needed were the implementation of (a) physical and nutrition education programs in child care settings and (b) measures that give employed parents more time to cook for and be physically active with their children. Support for specific strategies differed across genders and education levels. Moreover, they depended on the perceived relationship between work and meal preparation. Policy makers should be aware of the needs of employed parents to develop policies that would have the greatest likelihood of success in this population.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion PracticeSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207