Determinants of Physical Activity during Early Childhood: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity plays an important role for long-term health, and the preschool period is a vital developmental stage to establish healthy habits and behaviors. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of longitudinal studies examining the factors related to physical activity in young children. A literature search identifying physical activity studies in 2- to 6-year-old children was conducted in 2014. A total of 102 studies were initially identified, of which only nine met the inclusion criteria of prospective or longitudinal designs using objective measures of physical activity. Gender, aging, and seasonality (e.g. temperature, weather) were the three most common factors examined; followed by parental behaviors and weight status. Preschool- aged children are more physically active in better weather, and if parents, particularly fathers, spend more time playing with their children. Overall, few longitudinal studies have examined predictors of physical activity among young children. Of the limited evidence, it appears that the home environment may be a point for intervention, specifically encouraging parents to engage more with their young children in active pursuits. More longitudinal research is required to confirm and better understand salient factors related to physical activity during this critical early childhood period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".