Weight management experiences of overweight and obese Canadian adults: findings from a national survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We know little about how the 2006 Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management and prevention of obesity relate to Canadians' weight management experiences or whether these experiences reflect the recommendations in the Guidelines. METHODS: We used data from a general population omnibus survey to understand these two issues, particularly in relation to chronic disease. The survey included 23 questions related to weight management practices as well as those related to demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 2004 respondents, 33% were classified as overweight and 20% as obese. In the 12 months before the survey, 48% of overweight and obese respondents reported asking their physician about weight loss, while 30% reported that their physician advised them to lose weight without them specifically asking. With regard to the recommendations within the Guidelines, 14% of overweight and 18% of obese respondents reported having their waist circumference measured, 82% of overweight and 87% of obese respondents reported having their blood pressure measured, and 36% of overweight and 50% of obese respondents reported having a test for diabetes. CONCLUSION: These findings have implications for chronic disease identification and management.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".