Peer Mentoring Is Associated With Positive Change in Physical Activity and Aerobic Fitness of Grades 4, 5, and 6 Students in the Heart Healthy Kids Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Only 7% of Canadian children achieve activity recommendations, contributing to obesity and preventable disease. The Heart Healthy Kids (H2K) program was designed to test the relationship between peer mentoring, physical activity, and cardiovascular fitness. Participants from 10 schools (5 control, 5 intervention) were enrolled in the program. In control schools, H2K included a physical activity challenge and education sessions. Intervention schools included the addition of a peer-mentoring component. Physical activity was measured through daily pedometer recording. Cardiovascular fitness was evaluated using the PACER (Progressive Aerobic Cardiovascular Endurance Run) protocol to calculate maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max). Participants included 808 children (average age 9.9 ± 1.0 years). Although control and intervention schools did not differ at baseline, participants with peer mentoring logged significantly more steps per school day, on average, than those in control schools (6,785 ± 3,011 vs. 5,630 ± 2,586; p < .001). Male participants logged significantly more steps per school day than female participants. A significant improvement in VO2 max was also noted in intervention schools, with an average increase of 1.72 ml/mg/min. H2K was associated with positive change in physical activity and cardiovascular fitness, suggesting that peer mentoring shows promise for application in health promotion interventions.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".