Relative deprivation and risk factors for obesity in Canadian adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on socioeconomic differences in overweight and obesity and on the ecological association between income inequality and obesity prevalence suggests that relative deprivation may contribute to lifestyle risk factors for obesity independently of absolute affluence. We tested this hypothesis using data on 25,980 adolescents (11-15 years) in the 2010 Canadian Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study. The Yitzhaki index of relative deprivation was applied to the HBSC Family Affluence Scale, an index of common material assets, with more affluent schoolmates representing the comparative reference group. Regression analysis tested the associations between relative deprivation and four obesity risk factors (skipping breakfasts, physical activity, and healthful and unhealthful food choices) plus dietary restraint. Relative deprivation uniquely related to skipping breakfasts, less physical activity, fewer healthful food choices (e.g., fruits, vegetables, whole grain breads), and a lower likelihood of dieting to lose weight. Consistent with Runciman's (1966) theory of relative deprivation and with psychosocial interpretations of the health consequences of income inequality, the results indicate that having mostly better off schoolmates can contribute to poorer health behaviours independently of school-level affluence and subjective social status. We discuss the implications of these findings for understanding the social origins of obesity and targeting health interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".