Knowledge and awareness of Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines: a synthesis of existing evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review was to consolidate and synthesize existing evidence regarding current knowledge and awareness of the Canadian Physical Activity (PA) and Sedentary Behaviour (SB) Guidelines. MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed publications pertaining to the guidelines. Content experts, key organizations (i.e., ParticipACTION and the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute), journal Web sites, and service organizations (i.e., the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) and the Public Health Agency of Canada) were consulted for additional evidence. Scientific publications (n = 6) and research from ParticipACTION and the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute reported that awareness of the guidelines is low, especially with respect to the SB guidelines. Less than 10% of survey respondents from the Canadian population were aware of the PA guidelines, and less than 5% were aware of the SB guidelines. Information on the guidelines was available on 51% of public health unit and CSEP partner Web sites. Online metrics (e.g., downloads, site accessions) from CSEP, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and journal Web sites showed that online accession of the guidelines was high (e.g., all "highly accessed" on journal Web sites). This review showed that awareness of the Canadian PA and SB Guidelines is low among the general population but higher among the scientific and stakeholder communities. Governmental, nongovernmental, and stakeholder organizations should collaborate in creating sustained, long-term, and well-resourced communication plans to reach the Canadian population to raise awareness of PA and SB guidelines and should implement programs to facilitate their uptake.
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 | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".