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 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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".