MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W140453387

Physical activity of Canadian children and youth: accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey.

2011· article· en· W140453387 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel C. Colley, Didier Garriguet, Ian Janssen, Cora L. Craig, Janine Clarke, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedometerPhysical activitySedentary behaviorObesityMedicineChildhood obesityDemographyPublic healthPhysical therapyPsychologyGerontologyOverweight
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is an important determinant of health and fitness. This study provides contemporary estimates of the physical activity levels of Canadians aged 6 to 19 years. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. The physical activity of a nationally representative sample was measured using accelerometers. Data are presented as time spent in sedentary, light, moderate and vigorous intensity movement, and in steps accumulated per day. RESULTS: An estimated 9% of boys and 4% of girls accumulate 60 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity on at least 6 days a week. Regardless of age group, boys are more active than girls. Canadian children and youth spend 8.6 hours per day-62% of their waking hours-in sedentary pursuits. Daily step counts average 12,100 for boys and 10,300 for girls. INTERPRETATION: Based on objective and robust measures, physical activity levels of Canadian children and youth are low.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.106 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations869
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207