MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143260452 · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jss037

Generation of Immigration and Body Mass Index in Canadian Youth

2012· article· en· W2143260452 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elizabeth Quon, Jennifer J. McGrath, Marie‐Hélène Roy‐Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRacial and Ethnic Identity Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineUniversité de MontréalConcordia University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAcculturationBody mass indexImmigrationDemographyFirst generationPsychologyPopulationGeneration RGerontologyLongitudinal studyMedicineGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the role of acculturation, as measured by generational status, on body mass index (BMI) in a sample of Canadian youth. METHODS: Population-based data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth were used. Participants were divided into 2 age ranges: children aged 6-11 years (n = 14,287) and adolescents aged 12-17 years (n = 12,155). Youth were classified into one of five generations of immigration: first-generation, second-generation, mixed-generation, third-generation, and Aboriginal. Parent- and self-report height and weight were used to calculate BMI Z-scores. RESULTS: Generation of immigration was significantly related to BMI Z-score in both childhood and adolescence. First-generation immigrants had more weight gain compared to other groups during adolescence, but not during childhood. CONCLUSIONS: Acculturation, as measured by generation of immigration, is an important predictor of BMI in Canadian children and adolescents.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric PsychologySame topicRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchFrench-language works237,207