Active transportation as a way to increase physical activity among children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examines how active transportation could help increase the daily physical activity volume of school-aged children. METHODS: Using data from the 2003 Origin-Destination Survey carried out among 5% of the 3.5 million residents of the Greater Montreal Area, we determined the proportion of short motorized trips made daily by children 5-14 years old (16 837 children sampled) and estimated the number of steps these trips would account for if they were travelled by foot, taking into account variables such as age, sex and height of children. Modal choice and trip purpose were also examined. RESULTS: In 2003, 31.2% of the daily trips made by children aged 5-14 years in the Greater Montreal Area were 1 km or less (0.6 mile). Of these, 33.0% were motorized trips. Overall, 13.1% of the children in the area had 'steps in reserve', an average of 2238 steps per child per day. If they were performed, these steps would account for 16.6% of the daily recommended volume of physical activity for children. CONCLUSION: Replacing short motorized trips with walking could increase the physical activity level of children and contribute to meet the recommended guidelines, as long as these walking trips add to their daily physical activity volume. It could also reduce their dependence towards adults for moving around.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".