Physical activity at daycare: issues, challenges and perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to examine London, Ontario‐based childcare providers’ perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to physical activity participation among preschoolers (i.e. children aged 2.5–5 years) attending daycare. A heterogeneous sample of childcare providers (n = 54; response rate 47%) working at public daycare facilities in London, Ontario participated. Using a qualitative methodology, eight semi‐structured focus groups were conducted between February and March 2009. Focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive content analysis was used to code and categorize emerging themes. When asked to describe the barriers to engaging preschoolers in physical activity while at daycare, participants discussed inadequate equipment, insufficient space, daycare requirements and safety concerns, and weather. When asked to describe the facilitators, participants cited resources, music and the childcare providers themselves. This study’s findings provide contextual and descriptive information with potentially significant implications for childcare directors, parents and researchers to promote and support physical activity participation among preschoolers attending daycare.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".