Examining gender differences in the health behaviors of Canadian university students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The relationship between lifestyle choices and health outcomes has been an area of interest for many health professionals. Gender differences in these choices have also been an area of scrutiny. AIMS: The purpose of the present investigation was to examine gender differences in the health and lifestyle behavioral choices of Canadian university students. METHODS: A total of 638 (472 female and 166 male) undergraduate students were evaluated. RESULTS: Males and females differed significantly in their responses to appraisals of general state of health, hours/day engaged in social activities, frequency of drinking alcohol, amount of alcohol consumed per session, total number of sexual partners, number of meals eaten per day, participation in physical activity, completion of annual check-ups with doctor, screening for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and hypertension screening. Generally, men engaged in more risky health behaviors than females (e.g. alcohol use). CONCLUSION: Results are discussed in terms of cultural comparisons to previous research studies evaluating college health behaviors. Suggestions are made for health professionals to incorporate gender differences in behavioral change programmes geared towards improving awareness of the consequences of lifestyle choices.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".