MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4397008968 · doi:10.3390/adolescents4020017

The Development and Validation of a Tool to Evaluate the Determinants of Iron-Rich Food Intake among Adolescent Girls of Senegal

2024· article· en· W4397008968 on OpenAlexaff
Aminata Ndéné Ndiaye, Jérémie B. Dupuis, Nafissatou Ba Lo, El Hadj Momar Thiam, Mohamadou Sall, Sonia Blaney

Bibliographic record

VenueAdolescents · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthPsychologyFood intakeBiologyMedicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To reduce anemia among adolescent girls, factors that influence the consumption of iron-rich foods/IRF have not been investigated, and neither has a tool been developed to assess its determinants. Using the extended version of the theory of planned behaviour/eTPB, this study aims to develop and validate a questionnaire assessing individual and environmental factors that could influence IRF intake among Senegalese adolescent girls aged 10–19 years old. First, eight focus group discussions (FGDs) were held in different regions to identify salient beliefs related to each of the four constructs of the eTPB. Information from FGDs was used to develop a questionnaire that was administered to the first group (n = 200) of girls. Principal component and exploratory factorial analyses were then performed to identify latent factors for each construct. A modified version of the tool was administered to the second sample of girls (n = 400), and confirmatory factorial analyses were conducted. Hancock and Muller’s H reliability index was computed on the final model. Most metrics for fit indices were respected, and the H value was satisfactory. This study proposes a tool that could be used to explore determinants of the consumption of IRF among adolescent girls.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdolescentsSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207