Monitoring activities of teenagers to comprehend their habits: study protocol for a mixed-methods cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to increase physical activity in youth need to consider which activities are most likely to be sustained over time in order to promote lifelong participation in physical activity. The Monitoring Activities of Teenagers to Comprehend their Habits (MATCH) study is a prospective cohort study that uses quantitative and qualitative methods to develop new knowledge on the sustainability of specific physical activities. METHODS/DESIGN: Eight hundred and forty-three grade 5 and 6 students recruited from 17 elementary schools in New Brunswick, Canada, are followed-up three times per year. At each survey cycle, participants complete self-report questionnaires in their classroom under the supervision of trained data collectors. A sub-sample of 24 physically active students is interviewed annually using a semi-structured interview protocol. Parents (or guardians) complete telephone administered questionnaires every two years, and a health and wellness school audit is completed for each school. DISCUSSION: MATCH will provide a description of the patterns of participation in specific physical activities in youth, and enable identification of the determinants of maintenance, decline, and uptake of participation in each activity. These data will inform the development of interventions that take into account which activities are the most likely to be maintained and why activities are maintained or dropped.
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 | 0.049 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.008 |
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".