Not Just “A Walking the Dog”: Dog Walking and Pet Play and Their Association with Recommended Physical Activity among Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the role of pet play and dog walking in children's and adolescents' leisure time, and the relationship between these activities and physical activity. DESIGN: The study design was observational. SETTING: The study setting was metropolitan Perth and nonmetropolitan regions in Western Australia. SUBJECTS: The study included 1097 primary school (mean age, 10.1 years; SD, 1.6 years) and 657 secondary school (mean age, 14.0 years; SD, 1.3 years) students. MEASURES: Validated measures of total physical activity, dog walking, and pet play activity (prevalence and time) were calculated. ANALYSIS: Generalized linear models tested for differences between proportions, while adjusting for socioeconomic status, age, and school-level clustering. RESULTS: Approximately one third of primary school and one quarter of secondary school students reported that they walked the dog at least once in the last week. Pet play was the most common play activity for primary and secondary school girls, and the second and third most popular play activity for secondary and primary school boys, respectively. Secondary school students who walked the dog or played with pets spent an average of 1 hour per week on each activity, and they were significantly more likely (p < .005) to meet national physical activity recommendations than secondary school students not reporting these activities. CONCLUSION: Given the significant proportion of young people who frequently engage in dog walking and pet play, and the high level of pet ownership in many Western countries, promotion of these activities to support young people's health is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".