Evidências de validade da Escala de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional para adolescentes (ESANa)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a valid and reliable scale for assessing food and nutritional insecurity, specifically in adolescents. The initial version of the scale consisted of two subscales: perception of food insecurity and perception of nutritional security. The items were submitted to content analysis (n = 4) by a group of food and nutrition security experts, and semantic analysis (n = 20) by a group of adolescents conveniently sampled from the target population. After adjustments, the final version of the scale was applied to adolescent students (n = 425) aged 12 to 18 years (m = 14.32±0.96; CV = 6.7%). A two-factor model was the most appropriate after performing exploratory factor analysis. The subscales showed modest values of the alpha coefficient (0.69 and 0.60, respectively). Daily consumption of fruits, vegetables and soft drinks was significantly associated with higher scores in the food and nutrition security perception scale. Therefore, it is recommended to combine food access-based items with other aspects related to attitudes and behaviors towards healthy eating in order to achieve a more accurate picture of adolescent's needs and better guide public policies.
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 | 0.146 | 0.282 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".