Fitness of Canadian children and youth: results from the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The fitness of Canadian children and youth has not been measured in more than two decades, a period during which childhood obesity and sedentary behaviours have increased. This paper provides up-to-date estimates of the fitness of Canadians aged 6 to 19 years. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS), the most comprehensive direct health measures survey ever conducted on a nationally representative sample of Canadians. Descriptive statistics for indicators of body composition, aerobic fitness and musculoskeletal fitness are provided by sex and age group, and comparisons are made with the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey (CFS). RESULTS: Fitness levels of children and youth have declined significantly and meaningfully since 1981, regardless of age or sex. Significant sex differences exist for most fitness measures. Fitness levels change substantially between ages 6 and 19 years. Youth aged 15 to 19 years generally have better aerobic fitness and body composition indicators than 20- to 39-year-olds. INTERPRETATION: This decline in fitness may result in accelerated chronic disease development, higher health care costs, and loss of future productivity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".