MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906329107 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n4p73

Eating pattern among adolescent female student, Applied Medical Sciences College, University of Hafr-Al Batin

2018· article· en· W2906329107 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Celso L. Souza

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnackingCafeteriaOverweightObesityMedicineGerontologyAnthropometryPopulationAffect (linguistics)Environmental healthPsychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The college students, representing the young age population of community, for different reasons are prone to eat unhealthy foods and to have bad health habits during their college years which might affect their well-being and increase the risk of obesity, diabetes, and coronary heart disease; like fast food consumption, lower vegetable and fruit intake in face of less physical activities and a lot of computer & TV watching hours. This study aimed to assess eating habits and patterns, factors affecting food choices and anthropometric measurements. Descriptive cross-sectional study method was followed. 230 students were included in the study. The findings revealed that 50.9% of the study sample were at age group (< 20 years), nearly half 48.7% were at a preparatory year. Results show also that 44.3% of the study sample don't take breakfast regularly; the most reported causes were not enough time at home 49% and that they don't prefer cafeteria food 24.6% nor there is no for a break in the timetable 21.6%. The results show that 53.04% had a normal BMI and 24.35% were overweight. The BMI had a significant relation with the consumption and snacking patterns among students (p = .000). So, there is a greater need for constructing educational programs to be directed to enhance the nutritional status of the university adolescent students.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.380 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207