Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology position stand: Benefit and risk for promoting childhood physical activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current guidelines recommend children accumulate 60 min of daily physical activity; however, highly publicized sudden-death events among young athletes raise questions regarding activity safety. An expert group convened (June 2012) to consider the safety of promoting increased physical activity for children, and recommended the publication of an evidence-based statement of current knowledge regarding the benefits and risks of physical activity for children. Recommendations for encouraging physical activity while maximizing the opportunity to identify children who have been prescribed a physical activity restriction include (1) professionals and (or) researchers that encourage children to change the type of physical activity or to increase the frequency, intensity, or duration of their activity should inquire whether a child has primary healthcare provider-prescribed activity limitations before the child's activity participation changes; (2) physical activity researchers should prioritize the development of evidence regarding the benefits and risks of childhood physical activity and inactivity, particularly data on the risks of sedentary lifestyles and physical activity-associated injury risks that accounts for the amount of activity performed, and the effectiveness of current risk-management strategies and screening approaches; (3) professionals and researchers should prioritize the dissemination of information regarding the benefits of physical activity and the risks of sedentary behaviour in children; and (4) parents and professionals should encourage all children to accumulate at least 60 min of physical activity daily. The recommendations are established as a minimum acceptable standard that is applicable to all physical activity opportunities organized for children, whether those opportunities occur in a community, school, or research setting.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.016 |
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".