How important are determinants of obesity measured at the individual level for explaining geographic variation in body mass index distributions? Observational evidence from Canada using Quantile Regression and Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity prevalence varies between geographic regions in Canada. The reasons for this variation are unclear but most likely implicate both individual-level and population-level factors. The objective of this study was to examine whether equalising correlates of body mass index (BMI) across these geographic regions could be reasonably expected to reduce differences in BMI distributions between regions. METHODS: Using data from three cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) 2001, 2003 and 2007 for males and females, we modelled between-region BMI cross-sectionally using quantile regression and Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition of the quantile regression results. RESULTS: We show that while individual-level variables (ie, age, income, education, physical activity level, fruit and vegetable consumption, smoking status, drinking status, family doctor status, rural status, employment in the past 12 months and marital status) may be Caucasian important correlates of BMI within geographic regions, those variables are not capable of explaining variation in BMI between regions. DISCUSSION: Equalisation of common correlates of BMI between regions cannot be reasonably expected to reduce differences in the BMI distributions between regions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".