Determinants of sufficient daily activity in Australian primary school children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Australian guidelines recommend that children participate in at least one hour of physical activity every day. We aimed to measure physical activity participation in a random sample of Australian primary school children and to determine the biological, behavioural, environmental and social influences associated with insufficient daily activity. METHOD: We analysed the following cross-section data from a randomly selected sample of children (N=518) aged 5 to 12 years: age, gender, socioeconmic status (SES) indicators, family size, home play equipment availability, transport method to school, and estimated time per week in physical and sedentary activity. Logistic regression analysis was performed to determine variables that were associated with insufficient (<60 minutes) daily activity. RESULTS: Seventy-six children (15% of the cohort) failed to meet the minimum activity recommendations of 60 minutes of daily activity. These children were significantly less likely to walk or cycle to school (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.43; 95% CI=0.24-0.77) or participate in organised sports or activity (OR 0.42; 95% CI=0.28-0.64) and were more likely to spend in excess of 2 hours a day watching television of using a computer for entertainment (OR 2.10 (1.16-3.78). Age, gender, SES and family size were not significantly associated with insufficient activity. CONCLUSION: There exists a significant proportion of the paediatric population who are insufficiently active. Interventions to encourage increased activity in this sub-group may be successful if they seek to alter sedentary behaviour (namely television use) and method of transportation to and from school.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".