Reports of birthweight by adolescents and their mothers: comparing accuracy and identifying correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birthweight is associated with health outcomes throughout the lifespan. Official birthweight records are not always available, and researchers must rely on self-reports for birthweight information. This study evaluates the accuracy of adolescent self-reports of birthweight, using medical records as a standard, and compares it with maternal reports. It also examines potential correlates of accuracy. Respondents are 17-year-old adolescents and their mothers, who participated in a follow-up study of randomly selected samples from newborn discharge lists (1983-85) of two major hospitals in south-east Michigan. Nearly one-quarter of the adolescents stated that they did not know their own birthweight, with males twice as likely as females to respond 'don't know'. In addition, self-reports of birthweight among the remaining adolescents were inaccurate, and accuracy was inversely related to birthweight. While maternal reports of offspring's birthweight are highly accurate across diverse subgroups of the population, adolescent self-reports of birthweight are unlikely to be useful in medical research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".