Alimentação saudável com adolescentes por meio de tecnologia da informação e comunicação: revisão de escopo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescence is characterized by the period between 10 to 19 years of age. This is a phase for interventions related to the adoption of a healthy lifestyle, as well as its importance and impact on lifelong health. Educational technology in health becomes one of the alternatives to work with adolescents, as it enables interaction among them to promote healthy habits. Therefore, the present study aimed to map the national and international scientific production on healthy eating with adolescents, mediated by Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). This is a scoping literature review, structured in the methodology recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR. Thus, the following steps were adopted: formulation of research questions, definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria, definition of the research strategy, selection of studies/evidence sources, data extraction and coding, analysis, and interpretation of results. The consulted databases were: Medline/Pubmed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, Embase, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). The entire study selection process also occurred in duplicate, independently. The database search resulted in 12,990 works, after the application of initial filters and removal of duplicates, resulting in 7,898 documents. In the end, the sample resulted in 20 articles published in journals. It was possible to verify that most of the scientific production occurred internationally, with emphasis on studies conducted in the United States of America and Canada, with only one study conducted at the national level. In addition, the review showed that ICT are tools that can assist in promoting healthy habits, especially in the field of nutrition. Despite this, a critical view is necessary regarding the use of these technologies, especially regarding the content addressed. Thus, from this study, it is intended to contribute to the construction of knowledge regarding the use of ICT aimed at promoting healthy eating with adolescents.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".