MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1809260236

Exploring Family Child Care as a Context for Physical Activity

2010· article· en· W1809260236 on OpenAlexaff
Viviene A. Temple, Patti‐Jean Naylor

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInjury Epidemiology and Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PsychologyFocus groupHumanitiesNursingMedicineSociologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Emerging evidence suggests that young children are very inactive during child care. Our aim was to increase our understanding of the family child care environment as it relates to the promotion of physical activity and motor skill development for young children. A survey of care providers' perceptions of predisposing, enabling, and reinforcing factors for physical activity was completed by 138 respondents; additionally four focus group interviews were conducted. Care providers were positively predisposed toward physical activity, yet they encountered barriers associated with the unique circumstance of family child care, including: the diversity of children in care, licensing safety regulations, rules for play indoors, and the size of indoor spaces for play. Care providers felt that resources providing 'how to' ideas that appreciated the distinctive nature of family child care would be useful. De nouvelles donnees portent a croire que les jeunes enfants qui frequentent les garderies en milieu familial tendent a etre tres inactifs physiquement. Les auteures ont cherche a comprendre le contexte particulier des services de garde d'enfants en milieu familial dans l'optique de promouvoir l'activite physique et l'acquisition des habiletes motrices chez les jeunes enfants. Un sondage a ete mene aupres de 138 gardiennes pour cerner les facteurs de predisposition, d'encouragement et de renforcement pouvant favoriser l'activite physique. Quatre seances ont aussi ete organisees avec des groupes de consultation. Il en ressort que les gardiennes sont favorablement predisposees envers l'activite physique, mais se heurtent a des obstacles uniques aux garderies en milieu familial, soit la diversite des enfants desservis, les questions de securite liees a l'octroi des permis, les regles des jeux interieurs et la grosseur de l'aire de jeu a l'interieur. Les gardiennes etaient d'avis qu'il serait utile de produire des ressources pour leur fournir des trucs et des idees qui tiennent compte de la nature particuliere des garderies en milieu familial.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.787
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex JournalSame topicInjury Epidemiology and PreventionFrench-language works237,207