Socioeconomic status, social support, and oral <scp>health‐risk</scp> behaviors in Canadian adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We tested hypotheses regarding how adolescent oral health-related behaviors are associated with socioeconomic status (SES) and family and peer social support, including the extent to which such associations differ for boys and girls. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2013/2014 Canadian Health Behavior in School-aged Children Study for 20,357 adolescents ages 12-18 years. Family Affluence Scale was used to assess SES. Family and peer social support were assessed using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. We estimated average marginal effects from multivariable binary logistic regression models for three oral health-risk behaviors outcomes: infrequent toothbrushing, high sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake, and high sweets consumption across both genders. RESULTS: Adolescents from low SES households had lower probability of parental and peer support, and were significantly more likely to report infrequent toothbrushing and high SSB consumption, both before and after controlling for both types of support. Lower family support was associated with higher probability of engaging in infrequent toothbrushing and high SSB intake, while lower peer support was associated with higher probability of engaging in infrequent toothbrushing and lower likelihood of engaging in high SSB consumption. The associations of family support with oral health-related behaviors were somewhat stronger for boys than girls. CONCLUSIONS: Low SES and low family support were associated with a higher likelihood of oral health-risk behaviors (infrequent toothbrushing and SSB consumption). Regardless of adolescents' gender, parental support exerted a protective role, but peer support had countervailing risk and protective roles on oral health-related behaviors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".