Physical Activity Among Canadian Children on School Days and Nonschool Days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Schools are frequently cited as a favorable venue to promote physical activity (PA), however little data exist describing times when students are least active. Our objective was to overcome this limitation and describe time periods when students are least active. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional design to assess patterns of PA in 923 grade 5 students [mean age: 10.9 (± 0.4) years] from 30 schools in Alberta, Canada. Students wore time-stamped pedometers for 9 consecutive days, providing 7 full days of data. We compared step counts adjusted for nonwear time between school days and nonschool days as well as during school hours and after school hours. RESULTS: 689 (75%) students provided complete data. The average daily step count was higher on school days (boys 13,476 ± 4123 step/day; girls 11,436 ± 3158 steps/day) than nonschool days (boys 11,009 ± 5542 steps/day; girls 10,256 ± 5206 steps/day). More steps were also taken during school hours than nonschool hours (boys +206 ± 420 steps/hour, P < .001; girls 210 ± 347, P < .001 steps/hour). CONCLUSIONS: PA levels of children are below Canadian recommended levels for optimal growth and health. Health promotion should emphasize PA particularly among girls, outside school hours, and weekends.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".