MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152791833 · doi:10.1177/174183050900700105

The impact of Co-active Life Coaching on female university students with obesity

2009· article· en· W2152791833 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa van Zandvoort, Jennifer D. Irwin, Don Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of evidence based coaching and mentoring · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingObesityPsychologyMedical educationGerontologyMathematics educationMedicineInternal medicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the impact of Co-active life coaching on obese female university students. Five obese (BMI ≥ 30kg/mβ), female university students received an average of nine weekly, 35-minute, one-on-one sessions with a certified coach. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews before and after participating in the coaching intervention were conducted, and inductive content analysis was utilized. Strategies to enhance data trustworthiness were incorporated throughout. Participants initially reported: struggling with barriers and experiencing pressure from family to lose weight; negative relationships with themselves; feeling self-conscious and remorse for their size and lifestyle choices. At the conclusion of the study period, participants attributed enhanced self-acceptance; living healthier lifestyles; and making themselves a priority to their coaching experience. They appreciated being treated as the expert in their lives. Life coaching has potential as a method for supporting obese individuals in improving their relationships with themselves, and may serve as a catalyst in facilitating weight-loss.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of evidence based coaching and mentoringSame topicCoaching Methods and ImpactFrench-language works237,207