Factors That Influence Campus Dwelling University Students’ Facility to Practice Healthy Living Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Young adult university students living on campus are at an increased risk of developing lifestyle habits that encourage unintentional weight gain. Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the individual and contextual factors that influence campus dwelling university students' facility to practice healthy living guidelines that reduce their risk of unintentional weight gain. Lifestyle practices included nutrition, physical activity, and sleep. Methods For seven days, 48 campus dwelling students recorded their activities and reflected on how closely they were able to follow recommended healthy living guidelines. Recorded data were supplemented by follow-up focus groups. All data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results Students described multiple factors and conditions that influenced their facility to practice healthy living guidelines for nutrition, activity, and sleep. Many students' lifestyle practices put them at an increased risk of unintentional weight gain. Conclusions The campus environment challenges student's facility to practice healthy living guidelines. Nurses can intervene to build individual student capacity and to advocate for environmental polices that increase students' facility to choose lifestyle practices that promote health, lessen their risk of unintentional weight gain, and reduce their risk of developing chronic illness.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".