Physical activity guidelines for children and youthThis article is part of a supplement entitled <i>Advancing physical activity measurement and guidelines in Canada: a scientific review and evidence-based foundation for the future of Canadian physical activity guidelines</i> co-published by <i>Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism</i> and the <i>Canadian Journal of Public Health</i>. It may be cited as Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 32(Suppl. 2E) or as Can. J. Public Health 98(Suppl. 2).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this review is to provide a scientific update on evidence related to the biological and psycho-social health benefits of physical activity in school-aged children and youth. To accomplish this aim, the first part of the paper reviews existing physical activity guidelines for school-aged children and youth, with an emphasis placed on how Canada’s guidelines compare and contrast with those of other countries and organizations. The paper then provides an overview of physical activity levels of Canadian children and youth, which indicates that few Canadian youngsters meet current physical activity recommendations. The next section of the paper summarizes the literature that informs how much physical activity is required to promote health and well-being in children and youth. The paper then provides suggestions on modifications that could be made to Canada’s physical activity guidelines for children and youth. Specifically, consideration should be given to setting both minimal (≥60 min/d) and optimal (up to several hours per day) physical activity targets. The final section identifies future research needs. In this section, a need is noted for comprehensive dose–response studies of physical activity and health in the paediatric age group.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".