Screen-related sedentary behaviours of school-aged children
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
OBJECTIVE: To solicit school principals' and teachers' perspectives on children's screen-related sedentary behaviour and to identify possible solutions to reduce sedentary behaviours among school-aged children. METHOD: In-person interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were conducted with school principals and grades five and six classroom teachers in 14 randomly selected elementary schools in London and Middlesex County, Ontario. Fourteen principals and 39 classroom teachers participated in the study. Inductive content analysis was performed independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Both principals and teachers were very concerned about children's excessive screen activities, but they did not perceive that they could play a key role in reducing these behaviours. Key barriers were identified to reducing screen-related sedentary behaviour and to children's active living both at and away from school. They included competing demands from other subjects, limited gym resources/space within the school, a lack of control over the home environment, and a perception that parents were poor role models. Notwithstanding the above barriers, principals and teachers still recommended increasing children's daily physical activity both within and outside of school hours. Furthermore, they stressed the need for parents to play a key role in reducing their children's screen-related sedentary behaviours and increasing their level of physical activity. CONCLUSION: School principals and teachers were very concerned about excessive screen-behaviour among school-aged children when away from school and suggested that interventions should emphasize increasing daily physical education, promoting recreational sports at or away from school, and engaging parents in regulating screen time at home.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it