Conquering Childhood Inactivity: Is the Answer in the Past?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to compare the health-related physical fitness and physical activity behaviors of Old Order Mennonite children to both rural and urban-dwelling children living a contemporary Canadian lifestyle. METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used to compare the physical fitness and physical activity characteristics of three groups of children between the ages of 8-13 yr. A total of 124 Old Order Mennonite children (OOM) from Ontario, Canada, were compared with contemporary living children from urban (USK, N = 110) and rural (RSK, N = 165) Saskatchewan, Canada. Fitness was assessed using measures of height, weight, triceps skinfold, grip strength, push-ups, partial curl-ups, and aerobic fitness. Physical activity levels were directly measured for seven consecutive days using a MTI Actigraph accelerometer model 7164. RESULTS: After controlling for maturational age, analyses revealed that OOM children had a smaller triceps skinfold than USK children (P < 0.01), a greater aerobic fitness score than RSK children (P < 0.05), and greater grip strength than both RSK and USK children (P < 0.001). The OOM children also accumulated more minutes of MVPA per day than RSK or USK groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that OOM children tend to be leaner, stronger and more active than urban and rural dwelling children living a contemporary Canadian lifestyle despite having no physical education, no institutionalized sport, and low socioeconomic status. These findings support the notion that that contemporary living may facilitate a decline in fitness and physical activity among some Canadian children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".