MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904700267 · doi:10.20884/1.jgps.2018.2.1.907

HUBUNGAN ANTARA STATUS GIZI DAN TINGKAT ASUPAN ZAT GIZI DENGAN SIKLUS MENSTRUASI PADA REMAJA PUTRI DI KECAMATAN KEDUNGBANTENG KABUPATEN BANYUMAS

2018· article· en· W2904700267 on OpenAlexaff
Dita Noviyanti, Endo Dardjito

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Gizi dan Pangan Soedirman · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPublic Health and Nutrition
Canadian institutionsWiLAN (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMenstrual cycleMedicineRespondentGynecologyFood intakeNonprobability samplingEnvironmental healthDemographyPopulationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Menstrual disorders often occur among adolescent girls. Menstrual disorder due to several factor including nutritional status, age, physical activity, nutrients intake, disease, stress and influence of cigarettes . Objective: To examined the association between nutritional status and level of nutrients intake with menstrual cycle among aldolescent in Distric Kedungbanteng Banyumas. Methods: Design research is analytic observation with cross sectional approach. Sampling technique used purposive sampling and obtained 69 respondent adolescent girls. The technique of data colelection used menstrual cycle questionnaire, antropometric, food recall 2x24 jam, food picture and food model. Result: There is 40.6% respondent have an abnormal menstrual cycle. Nutritional status (11.6%) classified abnormal. Energy intake (91.3%), carbohydrate (94.2%) protein intake (89.9%) and fat intake (85.5%) classified an abnormal. Based on analysis of Chi-Square test, there is a significant relation between fat intake with menstrual cycle (p=0.041). Conclusion: Fat intake associated with menstrual cycle..

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Gizi dan Pangan SoedirmanSame topicPublic Health and NutritionFrench-language works237,207