MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561540070 · doi:10.14288/hfjc.v6i1.146

Correlates of Sedentary Behaviour in Children and Adolescents Aged 7-18: A Systematic Review

2013· review· en· W1561540070 on OpenAlexaff
Cara S. D. Temmel, Ryan E. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activitySedentary behaviorPhysical therapySedentary lifestyleMedicineGerontologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Purpose: Risks posed by sedentary behaviours, independent of physical activity, have become evident. This review includes the current literature on the correlates of sedentary behaviours among children and adolescents to inform future interventions for reducing sedentary behaviours. Methods: Search engine literature searches were conducted up to February 2012. Eligible papers were published in English in peer-reviewed journals, and examined correlates of sedentary behaviours in youth aged 7-18 yr. Results: A total of 188 samples were included. Sedentary behaviour was correlated to age, physical maturity, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, location, week/weekend day, neighborhood satisfaction, access, emotional and physical health status, risk behaviors, family and social influences, physical activity, and nutrition. Significant differences by specific sedentary behaviors were present in the findings. Conclusions: Correlates differed by type of sedentary behaviour, suggesting this is a complex area of research that cannot be assessed simply as an absence of physical activity. Several factors seem to be reliably linked to sedentary behavior; however, evidence suggests that specific sedentary behaviours have opposing effects compared to sedentary behavior in general. Research focused on sedentary behaviour specific interventions appears necessary.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen CollectionsSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207