MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415966697 · doi:10.1186/s12982-025-01070-y

The examination of the spatial and contextual disparities of determinant factors of adult obesity among communities in Chicago

2025· article· en· W4415966697 on OpenAlexaff
Tekleab Gala, R. Sajna, Jo‐Ann V. Sawatzky, Philip Garrison, Amisha Bhattarai, Dejene Seyoum, Shirjel Alam, Matthias Pawlowski

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsRed River College
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryChicago State UniversityCalifornia Department of Public HealthU.S. Children's BureauU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsObesityPublic healthPsychological interventionUnemploymentWhite (mutation)Public policyBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemPublic health policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of adult obesity has multiple complexes contributing factors and is becoming a significant public health concern worldwide, including in the neighborhoods of Chicago. This study utilized data on nineteen demographic, environmental, socioeconomic, and behavioral characteristics of community neighborhoods in Chicago to analyze the interplay and impact of these complex factors, which is essential for understanding and addressing the issue. The analysis revealed significant geographic variations in the prevalence of adult obesity across Chicago neighborhoods, with associations of these patterns found significant in 17 out of 19 determinant factors studied. Notably, strong associations were found between obesity and the percentage of the White population, the quality of sidewalks and walkability, the economic hardship index, and the unemployment rate. Identifying high-risk adult obesity communities and understanding the multifaceted contributing factors is crucial for developing evidence-based interventions and policy initiatives to reduce obesity and create healthier, more equitable urban neighborhoods for a city such as Chicago and beyond.

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)0.001
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 score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover Public HealthSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207