The impact of the Vancouver Winter Olympics on population level physical activity and sport participation among Canadian children and adolescents: population based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been much debate about the potential impact of the Olympics. The purpose of this study was to determine if hosting the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Games (OG) encouraged Canadian children to be physically active. METHODS: Children 5-19 years (n = 19862) were assessed as part of the representative Canadian Physical Activity Levels Among Youth surveillance study between August 2007 and July 2011. Parents were asked if the child participated in organized physical activity or sport. In addition, children wore pedometers for 7 days to objectively provide an estimate of overall physical activity. Mean steps/day and percent participating in organized physical activity or sport were calculated by time period within year for Canada and British Columbia. The odds of participation by time period were estimated by logistic regression, controlling for age and sex. RESULTS: Mean steps were lower during the Olympic period compared with Pre- (607 fewer steps/day 95% CI 263-950 steps/day) and Post-Olympic (1246 fewer steps 95% CI 858-1634 steps) periods for Canada. There was no difference by time period in British Columbia. A similar pattern in mean steps by time period was observed across years, but there were no significant differences in activity within each of these periods between years. The likelihood of participating in organized physical activity or sport by time period within or across years did not differ from baseline (August-November 2007). CONCLUSION: The 2010 Olympic Games had no measurable impact on objectively measured physical activity or the prevalence of overall sports participation among Canadian children. Much greater cross-Government and long-term efforts are needed to create the conditions for an Olympic legacy effect on physical activity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".