Millennials at work: workplace environments of young adults and associations with weight-related health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to describe the workplace environments of young adults and examine associations with diet, physical activity (PA) and body mass index (BMI). METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected (2008-2009) from 1538 employed young adult participants in Project EAT (Eating and Activity among Teens and Young Adults), a diverse population-based sample. Survey measures assessed height, weight, diet, moderate-to-vigorous PA, transportation-related PA and perceptions of the workplace food and PA environments (eg, soda availability, coworker support). Healthful characteristics were summed to reflect overall workplace healthfulness. Modified Poisson regression analyses conducted in 2015 identified associations between workplace food and PA environments and diet, PA and BMI. RESULTS: The healthfulness of workplace environments was suboptimal. Greater exposure to healthful workplace characteristics was related to more young adults engaged in favourable diet and PA behaviours and a lower prevalence obesity. For example, adjusted rates of obesity were 24% and 17% among those reporting low (≤1 characteristic) versus high (≥3 characteristics) exposure to healthful food environments, respectively (p<0.05). Workplace characteristics independently associated with weight-related outcomes included soda availability, proximity to a fast food outlet, living close to work and perceived ease of eating a healthy diet or being active at work. CONCLUSIONS: A more healthful workplace environment overall, including physical attributes and perceived social norms, may contribute to more favourable weight-related behaviours and lower prevalence of obesity among young adults. Employer-initiated and community-initiated policies may represent one way to create healthier workplace environments for young adults.
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 | 0.041 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".