Development of the Physical Activity Interactive Recall (PAIR) for Aboriginal children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aboriginal children in Canada are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes. Given that physical inactivity is an important modifiable risk factor for type 2 diabetes, prevention efforts targeting Aboriginal children include interventions to enhance physical activity involvement. These types of interventions require adequate assessment of physical activity patterns to identify determinants, detect trends, and evaluate progress towards intervention goals. The purpose of this study was to develop a culturally appropriate interactive computer program to self-report physical activity for Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawk) children that could be administered in a group setting. This was an ancillary study of the ongoing Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP). METHODS: During Phase I, focus groups were conducted to understand how children describe and graphically depict type, intensity and duration of physical activity. Sixty-six students (40 girls, 26 boys, mean age = 8.8 years, SD = 1.8) from four elementary schools in three eastern Canadian Kanien'kehá:ka communities participated in 15 focus groups. Children were asked to discuss and draw about physical activity. Content analysis of focus groups informed the development of a school-day and non-school-day version of the physical activity interactive recall (PAIR). In Phase II, pilot-tests were conducted in two waves with 17 and 28 children respectively to assess the content validity of PAIR. Observation, videotaping, and interviews were conducted to obtain children's feedback on PAIR content and format. RESULTS: Children's representations of activity type and activity intensity were used to compile a total of 30 different physical activity and 14 non-physical activity response choices with accompanying intensity options. Findings from the pilot tests revealed that Kanien'kehá:ka children between nine and 13 years old could answer PAIR without assistance. Content validity of PAIR was judged to be adequate. PAIR was judged to be comprehensive, acceptable, and enjoyable by the children. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that PAIR may be acceptable to children between nine and 13 years old, with most in this age range able to complete PAIR without assistance. The flexibility of its programming makes PAIR an easily adaptable tool to accommodate diverse populations, different seasons, and changing trends in physical activity involvement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".