Perceived Body Size and Weight Control Practices of Adolescents in Rural and Urban Communities in South Western Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: Body size perception has been described as the image of our own shape created in our imagination. Body image perception determines the adolescent engagement in weight control activities, such as bulimia and anorexia. A misperception of body size may lead the adolescent into engagement in weight control activities that may be injurious to adolescent’s health. This study assessed the perceived body size and weight control practices among adolescents in different settings.Methodology: A cross-sectional, multistage cluster sampling method was used to recruit 913 adolescents in Ibadan North Local Government, Ibadan, Nigeria who were interviewed using a semi-structured, self-administered questionnaire. Anthropometric measurements were taken; perceived body size were determine by Stunkard Figure Rating Scale Silhouette. Analysis was done using the Chi-square statistic and p<0.05 level of significance.Results: Over four-fifths (87.4%) of the adolescents wrongly perceived their actual body size. Body size overestimation was reported by both females and males. About 11.3% respondents recorded making an effort to reduce weight whereas, 12.7% recorded they were also involved in gaining weight. Over twice as large urban respondents (14.7%) engaged in weight reduction habits contrast to rural (6.8%). Majority of females with normal weight perceived themselves overweight (l2=50.06, p=0.000). More males were involved in weight gain practise (l2=6.94, p=0.031).Conclusion: The increased frequency of body weight misperceived within rural/urban adolescents and the reported influence and motivation of weight control behaviours, makes adolescent education on assessment of their weight and BMI imperative in adolescent health care services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".