Patterns of weekday and weekend physical activity in youth in 2 Canadian provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few Canadian children are meeting physical activity (PA) guidelines for optimal growth and health. There is little information describing the patterns of PA among Canadian youth, so it is difficult to determine where the deficits occur. The purpose of this study was to identify subgroups of youth and windows of time characterized by low PA and high sedentary behaviour. We conducted a cross-sectional study of 626 youth (aged 10-15 years) in 2 Canadian provinces. The primary exposure variables included geographic setting (rural vs. urban), sex, and days of the week (weekend days vs. weekdays). The primary outcome measures were minutes of light PA, moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and sedentary behavior, assessed with accelerometry. Compared with weekdays, MVPA was ∼30% lower on weekend days (55.8 ± 23.0 min vs. 38.7 ± 26.7 min; p < 0.001), whereas light PA was ∼15% higher. Significantly more youth achieved an average of >60 min of MVPA on weekdays than on weekend days (46% vs. 22%; p < 0.001). Sex-specific differences in MVPA were more pronounced on weekdays than on weekend days (∼13 vs ∼8 min per day; p < 0.01). Youth in rural settings achieved ∼9 fewer minutes of MVPA daily than youth in urban settings (p < 0.001). In youth 10 to 15 years of age, daily MVPA is lower and light PA is higher on weekend days than on weekdays. Girls and students living in rural areas were particularly vulnerable to low levels of MVPA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".