The iCook 4-H Study: An Intervention and Dissemination Test of a Youth/Adult Out-of-School Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe outcomes from intervention and dissemination of iCook 4-H. DESIGN: Five-state, community-based participatory research and a randomized, controlled trial followed by a 5-state, nonrandomized dissemination test of the iCook 4-H curriculum with control and treatment groups. SETTING: Community and university sites. PARTICIPANTS: Youths aged 9-10 years and their adult food preparer; 228 dyads in the intervention and 74 dyads in dissemination. INTERVENTION(S): Theoretical frameworks were Social Cognitive Theory and the experiential 4-H learning model. Six 2-hour, biweekly sessions on cooking, eating, and playing together followed by monthly newsletters and boosters until 24 months, expanded to 8 sessions for dissemination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Youth body mass index (BMI) z-scores, measured height and weight, and youth/adult program outcome evaluations surveys. ANALYSIS: Linear mixed models, group, time, and group × time interaction for BMI z-score and program outcomes changes. Significance levels = P ≤ .05; interaction term significance = P ≤ .10. RESULTS: In intervention, treatment BMI z-scores increased compared with controls based on significant interaction (P = .04). For odds of being overweight or obese at 24 months, there was no significant interaction (P = .18). In dissemination, based on significant interaction, treatment youths increased cooking skills (P = .03) and treatment adults increased cooking together (P = .08) and eating together (P = .08) compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: iCook 4-H program outcomes were positive for mealtime activities of cooking and eating together. The program can be successfully implemented by community educators. The increase in BMI z-scores needs further evaluation for youths in cooking programs.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".