Parental and Peer Influences on Physical Activity Among Scottish Adolescents: A Longitudinal Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated parental and peer influences on physical activity, examining gender and developmental differences during early-mid adolescence. METHODS: A 5-year longitudinal study tracking physical activity (measured by PAQ-C) among adolescents (n = 641) from final year of primary (P7) to fourth year of secondary school (S4). Peer support, peer socializing, parental support, and independent play were assessed. Logistic regression predicted physical activity, by year and gender, in relation to social influences. RESULTS: Boys reported higher physical activity, peer support, paternal support, and independent play than girls. Among both genders, peer, paternal, and maternal support decreased with age, whereas independent play increased. Time with friends was particularly important. Among high socializers (P7), odds of being active were over 3 times those of low socializers [boys: 3.53 (95% CI 1.77, 7.04), girls: 3.27 (95% CI 1.80, 5.92)]. Baseline physical activity was also a strong predictor among early secondary boys (OR 3.90 95% CI 2.10, 7.24) and girls (OR 4.15, 95% CI 2.00, 8.62). Parental support was less important than peer influences; only same-sex parental support remained significant in multivariables models. CONCLUSIONS: Parents and peers have important influences on adolescent physical activity. Significant gender and developmental effects are apparent through early-mid adolescence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it