Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increasing number of children defined as overweight or obese is causing concern among politicians and health advocates; several countries have launched policies addressing the issue. METHOD: The paper presents an analysis of how the childhood obesity is defined, explained and suggested policies to address the problem from the WHO, the EU, Canada, England and New Zealand. RESULTS: Considering the dramatic language used when describing childhood obesity, the proposed interventions are modest. Either the politicians do not consider the problem that great after all, or other concerns, such as the freedom of the food and drink industry and local authorities, are seen as more important. The causes identified are multiple and varied, including the physical and commercial environment, whereas the interventions primarily address the information level of the population, placing responsibility on the shoulders of the parents. Only the World Health Organization argues that statutory measures are required, and the English Government suggests one: a levy on sugary drinks. Otherwise, local authorities, schools and the industry are expected to act on a voluntary basis. Very little is explicitly substantiated by evidence, and the evidence cited is sometimes misinterpreted or disregarded. CONCLUSION: There is a discrepancy between how the problem of childhood obesity is presented as alarming and the modest measures suggested.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".