Uptake and effectiveness of the Children's Fitness Tax Credit in Canada: the rich get richer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Government of Canada implemented a Children's Fitness Tax Credit (CFTC) in 2007 which allows a non-refundable tax credit of up to $500 to register a child in an eligible physical activity (PA) program. The purposes of this study were to assess whether the awareness, uptake, and perceived effectiveness of this tax credit varied by household income among Canadian parents. METHODS: An internet-based panel survey was conducted in March 2009 with a representative sample of 2135 Canadians. Of those, parents with children aged 2 to 18 years of age (n = 1004) were asked if their child was involved in organized PA programs (including dance and sports), the associated costs to register their child in these programs, awareness of the CFTC, if they had claimed the CFTC for the tax year 2007, and whether they planned to claim it in the upcoming year. Parents were also asked if they believed the CFTC has lead to their child being more involved in PA programs. RESULTS: Among parents, 54.4% stated their child was in organized PA and 55.5% were aware of the CFTC. Parents in the lowest income quartile were significantly less aware and less likely to claim the CFTC than other income groups. Among parents who had claimed the CFTC, few (15.6%) believed it had increased their child's participation in PA programs. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of Canadian parents with children have claimed the CFTC. However, the tax credit appears to benefit the wealthier families in Canada.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".