Effects of Extension of the Youth Fit for Life Intervention Program by Video VS. Instructor Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Youth Fit For Life is a physical activity intervention program administered during after-school care that has been tested in the U.S. and Canada. It has demonstrated reliable improvements in body composition, endurance, and strength in children ages 5-12 years. The aim of this research was to contrast any additional improvements associated with extensions of the program with other physical activity modalities during its off days. Design: Two types of physical activity modalities - instructor-supervised physical activity (n=121) and the HopSports® video-based exercise system (n=171) - were administered to children (M age =7.3 years) for 2 days/week during their after-school care as a supplement to the existing 3-day/week, 45-minute/session Youth Fit For Life program. Results: Mixed-model repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated statistically significant within-group improvements over 12 weeks in body mass index (BMI), distance covered in a 6-minute walk/run test, and number of push-ups completed in 1 minute, in both groups. There were no significant differences in improvements between the 2 groups, and effect sizes were similar to research incorporating Youth Fit For Life alone. When data from subsamples of overweight and obese children were evaluated, only BMI scores significantly improved—again with no difference by group. Greater effect sizes for BMI change were found in children who were overweight and obese. Conclusion: No short-term benefits from the supplementation of the Youth Fit For Life intervention program by either video-based or instructor-supervised physical activity were identified. Future research should test extensions of the existing curriculum in other ways to improve effects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".