Comparing the physical activity patterns of 3-year-old Finnish and Australian children during childcare and homecare days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Limited previous research has contrasted physical activity (PA) patterns in preschool children across different hourly patterns or segments of day, or adopted similar methodologies to compare the PA behaviors of children from different countries. The purpose of this study was to examine how the PA levels and patterns differed between 3- year-olds within and between childcare and homecare days in Finland and Australia. ActiGraph GT3X accelerometers were used to monitor 121 (80 Finnish, 41 Australian) children’s PA for five consecutive days. No significant country differences were observed in children’s daily total PA (light-tovigorous PA [LMVPA]), except that during childcare days Finnish children spent more time in light PA compared to Australian children. During childcare attendance hours children engaged in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) for an average of 48 minutes (SD = 24) covering 54% of their daily MVPA in Finland, and for 53 minutes (SD = 34) covering 64% of their daily MVPA in Australia. Variation in children’s hour-by-hour PA was more pronounced during childcare days than homecare days. Despite the variations based on cultural practices, no major differences were observed in children’s daily total PA between the countries. However, these findings provide a better understanding of 3-year-olds’ PA behavior patterns and will serve as valuable evidence for the development of PA promotion in preschool children in both Finland and in Australia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".