The relationship between weight status and food environments, peer influence and dietary intake among high-school students: a case-control study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between weight status and food environments, peer influence and dietary intake among high-school students in Shiraz, Iran. Design/methodology/approach Applying a case-control design, 406 adolescents ( n = 203 overweight or obese and n = 203 normal weight) aged 14–18 years were selected using a multistage cluster random sampling method. Demographic information, physical activity level and anthropometric indices were collected. Dietary intake was determined using a 147-item food frequency questionnaire. Food environment (home and out of home) and peer influence were determined by a validated questionnaire. Findings The type of food purchased using pocket money was different between adolescents with overweight or obesity and normal weight adolescents ( p < 0.001). The out-of-home food environment score was not different between groups, but the home food environment score ( p = 0.004) and the peer influence score ( p = 0.001) were higher in normal weight adolescents. Adolescents with overweight or obesity consumed higher amounts of carbohydrate ( p = 0.006) and lower amounts of protein ( p = 0.01) and more sweet junk foods ( p = 0.01), nonstarchy vegetables ( p = 0.03) and fruits ( p = 0.01) compared to the normal weight group. Originality/value Home food environment, peer influence, differences in macronutrient intake and dietary patterns may be contributing factors to adolescent weight status.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it