Children's perceptions of attending a residential weight‐loss camp in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and aim Residential camps have been used to deliver weight‐loss interventions to paediatric populations, but very little is known about how children perceive and evaluate attending such camps. Therefore, this study examined children's perceptions of attending a residential paediatric weight‐loss camp. Methods Fifteen attendees (mean age = 13.56) of the 2002 Carnegie International Camp‐UK (CIC‐UK) were engaged in semi‐structured interviews, which were transcribed verbatim and subjected to an inductive analysis procedure. Results Results reflected pre‐camp issues including worries (boot camp fears, being bullied) and goals and aspirations (weight loss goals, reducing bullying, increasing self‐esteem and making friends). Negative elements pertaining to the camp experience were homesickness and dietary concerns. Positive elements of the camp experience were enjoyment, peer support, staff support and choice of activities. Conclusion Enjoyment, support from peers and staff and choice over activities appear to be important aspects in the delivery of residential obesity treatments for children.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".