Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, school-aged children and youth (aged 5–19 years) whose weight is greater than the 85th centile are over-weight, and those whose weight is above the 97th centile are obese; younger children (aged 2–5 years) must be over the 97th centile to be considered overweight and more than the 99.9th centile to be considered obese.1 A recent Canadian Health Measures Survey (2009–2011) reported obesity prevalence among 5- to 17-year-olds at 11.7%, with an addi-tional 19.8 % classified as overweight.2 In the United States, obesity prevalence among 2- to 19-year-olds (2009–2010) was reported at 16.9%, with another 14.9 % considered over-weight.3 Obesity that begins in childhood usually persists into adulthood4 and is associated with adverse outcomes including metabolic, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, neurologic, gas-trointestinal, respiratory and psychosocial disturbances.5–10 The predicted increase in childhood obesity has intensified the urgency of improving treatment approaches for the pediatric population. Treatment of childhood and adolescent obesity is an active area of research, and a number of systematic reviews have been published recently.11–17 Comprehensive behav-ioural interventions including changes in diet, physical activ-ity and lifestyles involving individual patients or families are Treatment of overweight and obesity in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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 | 0.003 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.609 | 0.237 |
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".