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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".