PEER HEALTH TEACHING IMPROVES NUTRITION BEHAVIORS IN THE TEEN TEACHER POPULATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer teaching is a promising model of health education. Limited research exists on the topic of the effectiveness of peer health teaching, and even less research exists on the effects on the actual peer teachers, notably their motivations for becoming peer teachers as well as behavioral modifications and improved self-efficacy made as a result. This study examined the motivations and the health behavior modifications made by 4-H Eat 4-Health teen teachers ages 14 to 17 after delivering a peer health education program. This study investigated teen teachers’ nutrition and physical activity behavior changes as well as their leadership and confidence skills acquired as a result of teaching a health education program. Demographic information and nutrition and physical activity behaviors were measured using a retrospective 4-H Common Measures survey questionnaire. In-depth phone interviews examined the teen teachers’ reasons for participating in the 4-H Eat 4-Health program and the skills they gained from teaching. The findings from this study showed that the study participants experienced the most significant changes in their leadership skills, eating patterns, confidence levels, role modeling capabilities, and need for self-improvement. Advisor: Michelle Krehbiel
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".