An active school model to promote physical activity in elementary schools: Action schools! BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of an active school model on children's physical activity (PA). DESIGN: 16-month cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 10 elementary schools in Greater Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: 515 children aged 9-11 years. INTERVENTION: Action Schools! BC (AS! BC) is an active school model that provided schools with training and resources to increase children's PA. Schools implemented AS! BC with support from either external liaisons (liaison schools, LS; four schools) or internal champions (champion schools, CS; three schools). Outcomes were compared with usual practice (UP) schools (three schools). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: PA was measured four times during the study using pedometers (step count, steps/day). RESULTS: Boys in the LS group took 1175 more steps per day, on average, than boys in the UP group (95% CI: 97 to 2253). Boys in the CS group also tended to have a higher step count than boys in the UP group (+804 steps/day; 95% CI: -341 to 1949). There was no difference in girls' step counts across groups. CONCLUSIONS: The positive effect of the AS! BC model on boys' PA is important in light of the current global trend of decreased PA.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".