"Drinking habits": The effects of hydration status onsecondary school students during school session / Mohamad Fitri Abdul Rahaman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major purpose of understanding the hydration status among school students is to highlight the importance of consuming proper water intake during school session and also being applied throughout their lifetime. Hydration Status is examined by the urine specific gravity (USG), urine volume, urine colour, and body weight of the student during three different periods of the school session. A total of one hundred fifty two students (N=152) were selected via stratified random sampling had participated in this study. Results had shown that the significant different value is (p<0.05), where the mean and standard deviation of age (14.99±1.90), height (159.66::1::7.59), urine specific gravity (1.02::1::0.01), urine volume (104.79±77.37) and body mass (55.37::1::24.7), while there were no significant differences in urine colour (6.07::1::1.35) where (p>0.05). If the students are having insufficient water consumption, it will hinder their learning process during school session. Therefore, the students are having moderate dehydration due to environmental condition, heat acclimatization, and drinking behaviour. It suggested by Dietitians of Canada to consume 12 cups of water or 3 liter for men and 9 cups of water or 2.2 liter for women to maintain the body in hydrated state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".