MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1468535869 · doi:10.1093/pch/18.6.301

Results from the Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth

2013· article· en· W1468535869 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel D. Barnes, Rachel C. Colley, Michael Borghese, Katherine Janson, Adrea Fink, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsActive Healthy KidsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReport cardPhysical activityPositive Youth DevelopmentMedicinePsychologyGerontologyEnvironmental healthPhysical therapyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present article summarizes the results from the Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. The Report Card assessed the physical activity levels of Canadian children and youth nationally, and the initiatives of public and nongovernment sectors to promote and facilitate physical activity opportunities for children and youth in Canada. Based on a comprehensive collection of data that were analyzed and/or published in 2011, 24 indicators relating to physical activity were graded. The Physical Activity Levels indicator, the core indicator of the Report Card, was graded an 'F' for the sixth consecutive year. Although the majority of grades remained unchanged from the previous year, four grades improved and two worsened. These results suggest that few Canadian children and youth have sufficient physical activity levels, and that greater efforts are required across sectors to promote and facilitate physical activity opportunities for children and youth in Canada.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207