Weighing the Options: How Can We Encourage Healthy Weights among America's Youth?
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
Six in ten American adults are above what experts consider a healthy weight. More than a quarter of all adults are in the obese range, a rate that has doubled in less than twenty years. The weight boom has hit children just as hard, with obesity rates tripling in the last three decades. The excess pounds often trigger major health problems, including heart disease and diabetes -- conditions that worsen in adulthood. Obesity has severe social consequences, as well. Overweight youth are often teased and even ridiculed, causing emotional scars that can last a lifetime.The purpose of this guide is to encourage public deliberation about the problem and what we can do about it. While people have differing opinions on the issue, most agree that multiple factors contribute to our overweight society. To tackle the problem successfully, everyone needs to be involved -- families, schools, health and social service programs, community and faith based groups, government, and industry.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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