A Growth Status Measurement Pilot in Four Calgary Area Schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable measures of growth in children are necessary for planning and evaluating obesity prevention programs. Currently, measured growth data are unavailable in Calgary for school-age children. This single sample, cross-sectional study included Grade 5 students and their parents. Height and weight measurements of 305 students (68% of those eligible) were taken in private in June 2007 and converted to Body Mass Index (BMI) categories. All but one student (99.7%) completed a questionnaire assessing perceptions of the measurement process. Parents received their child's growth data, an information package on healthy eating and active living, additional resources, and a questionnaire. A third of parents completed the questionnaire. Most students (94.1%) reported feeling "OK" or "Happy" about being measured. In addition, 93.2% of parents reported having "Low" or "Neutral" concerns about the measurement. Furthermore, 28.1% of responding parents reported seeking additional resources or considered making a lifestyle change for their family following the pilot. Measurement of students completed in private by nurses was acceptable to participants.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".