Canadian federal penitentiaries as obesogenic environments: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very little is known about how incarceration influences a person's weight in Canada. We sought to determine how inmates' weights change during their incarceration in Canadian federal penitentiaries. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, longitudinal cohort study to examine weight change in Canadian federal penitentiaries. To participate, inmates had to have been incarcerated for at least 6 months at the time of the study. Current anthropometric data were measured or taken from medical records, then compared with anthropometric data from the beginning of incarceration (mean follow-up of 5.0 ± 8.3 yr). We examined 3 outcomes: change in weight (kg), change in body mass index (BMI) and rate of weight change (kg/yr) during incarceration. RESULTS: = 645). The proportion of inmates with a BMI in the normal range (18.5-24.9) decreased by 52%. Weight gain was found to be associated with older age, region (Ontario v. Atlantic), ethnicity (Aboriginal inmates showed the highest weight gain), longer incarceration, and longer total sentence. However, weight gain was not associated with sex, feeding system or spoken language. INTERPRETATION: The Canadian correctional environment can be considered obesogenic, with most inmates experiencing undesirable and rapid weight gain during their incarceration. Rates of obesity increased dramatically during incarceration, and could put inmates at increased risk of obesity-related health problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".