Learning Environments’ Activity Potential for Preschoolers (LEAPP): Study Rationale and Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of the study protocol for the Learning Environments' Activity Potential for Preschoolers (LEAPP) study, the goal of which is to describe the activity levels of preschoolers attending various early learning venues and explore which attributes of these facilities (e.g. curriculum, policies, equipment, etc.) support activity participation. DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study aimed to recruit approximately 30 early learning environments requesting participation from preschoolers aged 2.5-5 years. Data collection included: Actical accelerometers (MiniMitter, Oregon, USA) to measure the activity levels of children for five consecutive days (15-second epoch length) while in care; the Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation tool to explore the early learning environment's impact on activity; anthropometric data; the Child Temperament Questionnaire to assess the influence of preschoolers' temperament on physical activity; and demographic information from parents/guardians and early learning staff. ANOVA and linear regression analyses will be conducted to assess variances in activity levels among preschoolers attending different early learning types and to explore the impact of early learning environments on their activity levels. Independent sample t-tests will be used to examine differences in activity levels based on sex and weight status. EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE STUDY FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: This research will provide the first Canadian data to address environmental influences on preschoolers' activity levels in differing early learning environments. Additionally, this work will highlight the extent to which activity levels vary among preschoolers enrolled in full-day kindergarten, centre-, and home-based childcare. Significance for public healthThis study represents the first examination of the differences in physical activity levels among preschoolers attending various early learning environments. As such, it is important that the methodology undertaken be shared in the event that other researchers doing comparable work want to adopt a similar approach. Results of this research may inform the work of health promotion, public health, and early learning stakeholders. Specifically this work may impact early learning curricula, policies, and practices in service of helping Canada's preschool cohort become sufficiently physically active.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".