MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889864199 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2018.21020

Research Progress on “obesity paradox”

2018· article· en· W2889864199 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qi‐Fa Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObesityObesity paradoxMedicinePhysical activityPsychologyGerontologyPhysical therapyEndocrinologyOverweight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“Obes paradox” refers to the conclusion that obesity is contrary to the original obesity. Obesity may not reduce the survival time of patients, and the risk of death in some chronic diseases is inversely proportional to obesity. Obesity can have some adverse effects on an individual's life and society, but obesity is not completely harmful. Compared with people of normal weight, obese people are more likely to actively receive treatment and try various healthy behaviors. The disadvantages of obesity are far greater than the benefits. The most reasonable way is to maintain the health of various body types. Its basic concept is that healthy behaviors, including nutrition and physical activity, are more important than weight. At present, there are some studies on “obesity paradox” and research against the theory. Experts and scholars have their own opinions, but no study can accurately define whether the “obesity paradox” is established.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.444 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207