Bibliographic record
Abstract
Re: He M, Piché L, Clarson CL, Callaghan C, Harris SB. Childhood overweight and obesity management: A national perspective of primary health care providers' views, practices, perceived barriers and needs. Paediatr Child Health 2010;15(7):419–26. To the Editor; The article cited above reported the views, practices, perceived barriers and needs of Canadian primary health care providers related to childhood overweight and obesity, and found that health providers felt inadequately resourced or supported to address this important public health issue. In particular, the authors identified an urgent need for improved dissemination of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) relating to paediatric obesity, and a paucity of tools and resources for busy practitioners. Obesity is a multifaceted, complex condition for which there are presently no satisfactory solutions for clients or providers in our current health care system (1–3). The study by He et al demonstrated that this is not only a systems level issue, but one that is felt by health professionals in their everyday practice. Members of the Treatment and Research of Obesity in Pediatrics In Canada (TROPIC) network have been working to address these gaps, in part through the development of an education tool for health care practitioners designed to disseminate the 15 paediatric recommendations from the CPGs. The tool, created by Canadian experts in paediatric obesity, is an electronic slide set that clearly identifies each recommendation specific to the paediatric population and provides supplementary information about how to implement the recommendations. Canadian Obesity Network members may download the tool and user guides for free at www.obesitynetwork.ca/pediatrics. Evaluation of the tool and its dissemination is being conducted, and the results will be presented at the 2011 National Obesity Summit in Montreal, Quebec. With the creation of a dissemination tool specific to the paediatric recommendations of the 2006 Canadian CPGs, we anticipate that an important step toward increasing health care practitioner knowledge of the CPGs and providing a tool relevant to the busy health care practitioner is underway, thereby addressing the gap highlighted in the paper by He et al.
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 | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
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".