A Descriptive Study to Assess the Knowledge and Practice Regarding Health Hazards of Consumption of Junk-Food among Adolescents in Senior Secondary School of Bhalwal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A descriptive study to assess the knowledge and practice regarding health hazards of consumption of junk food among adolescents (13-19) at selected senior secondary school of BHALWAL, Jammu. Material & Methods: A descriptive approach using non experimental research design was adopted for the present research study. Purposive sampling technology was used to collect the data. Tool used for present study were socio- demographic sheet, self structured questionnaires tool, Likert scale was used to collect the data. The population for the study were all comprised of adolescents who are 13-19 year. (Accessible Population) it included adolescents of age 13-19 years in selected senior secondary school of BHALWAL, Jammu. The sample size for present study was 100. Results: Among 100 adolescents, 29 (29%) had inadequate knowledge, 63 (63%) had moderate knowledge and 8 (8%) had adequate knowledge and the study also reveals that among 100 samples 10 (10%) had unhealthy practice, 61 (61%) neutral practice, 29 (29%) had healthy practice. Conclusion: It was concluded from findings of study there were significant association of knowledge score with demographic variables that is age, gender, parental education, monthly income.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".