An analysis of weight perception and physical activity and dietary behaviours among youth in the COMPASS study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weight misperceptions appear common among youth, potentially influencing their motivation to engage in health-related behaviours; however, the direction of impact remains unclear. The current study examined how weight perception influences physical activity (PA) and diet among youth. This study used 2-year linked data of 19,322 grade 9–12 students from Year 2 (Y2:2013-2014) and 3 (Y3:2014-2015) of the COMPASS study. Generalized Estimating Equation models tested the effect of Y3 weight perception on the various Y3 PA and dietary behaviour measures, adjusting for Y3 covariates (grade, race/ethnicity, weekly spending money), school cluster, school area median household income, and the Y2 outcome. Models were stratified by gender and body mass index (BMI) classification. Regardless of BMI status, overweight perceptions among boys and girls were associated with lower likelihoods of playing school sports, physical education class enrollment, meeting resistance exercise recommendations, eating breakfast regularly, and less vigorous-intensity PA, and among boys only, lower odds of meeting PA guidelines, compared to their peers who perceived their weight as “about right”. In boys with normal-weight BMIs, underweight perceptions predicted less vigorous-intensity PA, and lower odds of physical education class enrollment, and of meeting PA and resistance exercise recommendations, than “about right” perceptions. Among girls, underweight perceptions predicted lower likelihoods of engaging in adequate resistance exercise and playing intramurals, and greater odds of eating fast food on weekends, purchasing snacks, and drinking energy drinks and sugar-sweetened beverages. Girls with overweight/obese BMIs who perceived their weight as such were less likely to consume adequate fruits and vegetables relative to their counterparts with “about right” weight perceptions. Overall, weight perceptions of “about right” appear more favourable for health behaviours among youth across the weight range. Results suggest obesity prevention strategies aiming to increase awareness of weight status may have unintended effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".