MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752910570 · doi:10.22374/1875-6859.13.1.6

CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS EXPERIENCED BY PRINCE GEORGE PARENTS IN PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN TO ENGAGE IN HEALTHY EATING AND ACTIVE LIVING: A MEN’S HEALTH PARENTS PERSPECTIVE

2017· article· en· W2752910570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mamdouh M. Shubair, Jenna C. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Men s Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealthy eatingFocus groupPerspective (graphical)GerontologyActive livingHealthy foodPsychologyGeorge (robot)Group livingDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePhysical activityNursingSociologyPublic healthPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to investigate the challenges and successes experienced by parents in provid-ing children with opportunities for healthy living. Focus group interviews were conducted with parents of children 0-6 years to discuss challenges and successes in healthy eating, active living and being screen smart. The focus group interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Three main themes emerged from transcripts which include: Barriers to Healthy Living; Parent Involvement; and Child Involvement. It is recommended that the Healthy Families Prince George committee design community initiatives to support families in the Prince George area to achieve optimal healthy living, based on the study results. Upstream social policies are warranted in order to support low socio-economic status (SES) male parents and their families to achieve healthy lifestyle including healthy eating and active living.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.296 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Men s HealthSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207