Actual Body Weight and the Parent’s Perspective of Child’s Body Weight among Rural Canadian Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of being overweight during childhood continues to increase in the USA and Canada and children living in rural areas are more at risk than their urban counterparts. The objectives of this study were to evaluate how well the parent's perception of their child's weight status correlated with objectively measured weight status among a group of rural children and to identify predictors of inaccurate parental perceptions of child's weight status. Participants were children from the Saskatchewan Rural Health Study conducted in 2010. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed through rural schools to parents of children in grades one to eight. Parents reported their child's height and weight and rated their child's weight status (underweight, just about the right weight, or overweight). Standardized body mass index (BMI) categories were calculated for clinically measured height and weight and for parental report of height and weight for 584 children. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of misclassification of the parent's perception of child's weight status adjusting for potential confounders. Clinically measured overweight was much higher (26.5%) compared to parental perceived overweight (7.9%). The misclassification of the child's BMI was more likely to occur if the child was a boy (odds ratio (OR) = 1.58) or non-Caucasian (OR = 2.03). Overweight was high in this group of rural children and parental perception of weight status underestimated the actual weight status of overweight school-age children. Parental reporting of child weight status has implications for public health policy and prevention strategies. Future research should focus on assessing longitudinal effects of parental misperceptions of child's 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".