MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2256301880 · doi:10.5993/ajhb.40.1.3

Association between Weight and Smoking Not Mediated by Weight Loss Attempts or Bullying

2015· article· en· W2256301880 on OpenAlexafffund
Leia Minaker, Scott T. Leatherdale

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Health Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsOverweightObesityYouth smokingOddsWeight lossOdds ratioDemographyAssociation (psychology)PsychologyMedicineClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyTobacco controlPublic healthLogistic regressionInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Youth smoking and obesity may both be mediated by weight control behaviors and experiences of bullying. This study examines associations between smoking and obesity among youth, and explores whether associations are mediated by weight loss attempts or bullying experiences. METHODS: Data from 24,173 grade 9 to 12 students in the COMPASS study (2012-13) were used to examine the prevalence of self-reported smoking, weight status, attempting to lose weight, and being a victim of bullying. Generalized linear mixed effects models were used to examine correlates of smoking. RESULTS: Among youth, 11% reported currently smoking, 20% were overweight or obese, 42% reported attempting to lose weight, and 18% reported being bullied. Girls who reported attempting to lose weight had higher odds of smoking (OR = 1.42, p = .0039), and students who reported being bullied had higher odds of smoking (OR = 1.85, p < .0001). Both variables were significantly associated with smoking independent of weight status. CONCLUSIONS: For girls, weight loss attempts were associated with smoking. For both sexes, being bullied was associated with smoking, independent of weight status. Programs attempting to reduce smoking among youth should consider the effects of weight control behaviors and bullying irrespective of weight status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Health BehaviorSame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207