Predictors of One-Year Change in How Youth Perceive Their Weight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overall, perceptions of being at “about the right weight” appear advantageous for youth physical and mental health, regardless of BMI classification, whereas perceptions at either extreme (overweight or underweight) may negatively impact health behaviours and mental health. Instead of considering weight misperceptions as problematic, some researchers have proposed that underestimations of weight status may offer resiliency among individuals with overweight or obesity. Promoting “about right” WPs and preventing change to overweight or underweight perceptions may offer an effective public health strategy for supporting youth health over time. However, limited prospective evidence exists on factors that shape perceptions of weight status over time. The current study examined modifiable predictors of one-year change in weight perception among youths. We used 2-year linked data of 18,112 grade 9–12 students from Year 3 (Y3:2014–2015) and Year 4 (Y4:2015–2016) of the COMPASS study. Generalized Estimating Equation models tested screen use, physical activity, and bullying victimization as predictors of change from perceptions of “about the right weight” to “overweight” or “underweight” perceptions, adjusting for Y3 covariates (body mass index, ethnicity, and grade) and school cluster. Results support the value of team sports among females and resistance exercise among males as protective against changes to overweight or underweight perceptions over one year. Also, various forms of bullying victimization predicted overweight perceptions in males and females. Watching TV/movies or messaging/texting for over 2 hours/day was associated with overweight and underweight perceptions, respectively, in females only. Playing video/computer games for over 2 hours/day was associated with overweight perceptions in males and underweight perceptions in females. Findings support the potential of bullying prevention, limiting certain screen use, and supporting engagement in team sports for females and resistance exercise for males as strategies to maintain perceptions of being at “about the right weight.”
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".