"Drinking habits": The effects of hydration status on \nsecondary school students during school session / Mohamad Fitri Abdul Rahaman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major purpose of understanding the hydration status among school \nstudents is to highlight the importance of consuming proper water intake during \nschool session and also being applied throughout their lifetime. Hydration Status is \nexamined by the urine specific gravity (USG), urine volume, urine colour, and body \nweight of the student during three different periods of the school session. A total of \none hundred fifty two students (N=152) were selected via stratified random sampling \nhad participated in this study. Results had shown that the significant different value \nis (p<0.05), where the mean and standard deviation of age (14.99±1.90), height \n(159.66::1::7.59), urine specific gravity (1.02::1::0.01), urine volume (104.79±77.37) and \nbody mass (55.37::1::24.7), while there were no significant differences in urine colour \n(6.07::1::1.35) where (p>0.05). If the students are having insufficient water \nconsumption, it will hinder their learning process during school session. Therefore, \nthe students are having moderate dehydration due to environmental condition, heat \nacclimatization, and drinking behaviour. It suggested by Dietitians of Canada to \nconsume 12 cups of water or 3 liter for men and 9 cups of water or 2.2 liter for \nwomen 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".