COMPARING HEALTH-RELATED PHYSICAL FITNESS BETWEEN OLD ORDER MENNONITE AND URBAN CHILDREN IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern technology in mainstream culture has contributed to a decrease in children's physical activity. Physical activity is a behavior with a strong influence on physical fitness. PURPOSE To compare health-related physical fitness between two groups of children differing on lifestyle-related physical activity: Old Order Mennonite (OOM) children in southwestern Ontario and urban children in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. METHODS One hundred sixteen boys and 115 girls aged 8.8–13.8 years participated in a battery of fitness tests called the Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness & Lifestyle Appraisal (CPAFLA). The CPAFLA includes blood pressure and resting heart rate measures, anthropometric measures (height, weight, waist girth, skin-folds), a strength measure (handgrip strength), endurance measures (push-ups, partial curl-ups), and flexibility (sit-and-reach test) and aerobic (step test) measures. The data were analyzed using independent-sample t-tests. RESULTS No significant differences were detected between OOM and urban children for chronological age, resting heart rate, blood pressure, height, weight, maturational age (predicted decimal years from peak height velocity), triceps skin-folds, push-ups, partial curl-ups, and the step test. OOM children (n = 124) did have significantly greater handgrip strength (p ≤ .05) than urban children (n = 107). Also, OOM boys (n = 67) were significantly lighter (p ≤ .05) and performed significantly fewer push-ups (p ≤ .05) than urban boys (n = 49). CONCLUSION There are few differences between the health-related physical fitness of OOM and urban children in Canada. This research has been funded by the Canadian Population Health Initiative (CPHI); a program of the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI).
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".