Differences in Geographical Location and Health Behaviors of Participants in a Family-Based Lifestyle Intervention for Children and Adolescents Living with Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unknown if children and youth who live in rural or “less rural” locations who enroll in the provincially funded Generation Health Clinic (British Columbia, Canada), a family-based lifestyle program for weight management, present with different health behaviors at baseline. Thus, we assessed sociodemographic and health behavior (diet, physical activity, and sleep) collected between 2015 and 2019. Data were stratified by age (children: ≤12 years; adolescents: ≥13 years) and geographical location (“less urban” and urban) based on Statistics Canada definitions and then analyzed using independent t-tests and chi-square tests. We found that more “urban” children consumed more daily family meals (p < 0.001), ate out weekly (p = 0.02), ate “other” vegetables (p = 0.002), and had less frequent sports drink consumption (p < 0.001) compared with less urban children. No significant differences in health behaviors were seen in adolescents. These findings suggest that a participant’s geographical location should be considered when developing family-based interventions for weight management.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".