Far from ideal: weight perception, weight control, and associated risky behaviour of adolescent girls in Nova Scotia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of weight-related concerns, unhealthy weight-control behaviour, and associated risky behaviour among adolescent girls, and to ascertain whether these girls had discussed a healthy weight with their physicians. DESIGN: Anonymous, self-report, cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Four high schools in rural Nova Scotia. PARTICIPANTS: Adolescent girls in grades 10 to 12. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight perception, prevalence of weight-control behaviour, associations between weight perception and risky behaviour, associations between disordered eating behaviour and other risky behaviour. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 76%. Half the 1133 participants saw themselves as not being the "right" weight; 60% were trying to lose weight. During the past 30 days, 16% of the girls were attempting to control or lose weight and had engaged in disordered eating behaviour. In univariate analysis, perception of being either overweight or underweight was significantly associated with suicidal thoughts, suicide planning, and risk of depression. In multivariate analysis, positive associations were found between disordered eating behaviour and suicidal thoughts (odds ratio [OR] 4.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6 to 6.7), suicide planning (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 4.7), suicide attempts (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.8 to 6.6), and ever having had vaginal intercourse (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.5). Only 22% of respondents had spoken with a doctor about a healthy weight. CONCLUSION: Weight concerns are prevalent among adolescent girls in Nova Scotia. Many of them, especially those who see themselves as overweight or underweight, engage in unhealthy weight-control methods. Perceived underweight and overweight and disordered eating behaviour have strong associations with depression and self-harming behaviour. Few participants had discussed a healthy weight with a physician. Health professionals should be aware of the associations between weight perception and disordered eating behaviour and other risky behaviour.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".