Physical Activity of Children With and Without Long-Term Illness or Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We know very little about physical activity in children with long-term illness or disability compared with those children without disabilities. Previous studies indicate low physical activity levels among all adolescents. METHODS: The sample consisted of Canadian (n = 2720) and Finnish pupils (n = 3459) approximately 13.5 and 15.5 years of age in general (mainstreamed) education. The study is a part of the Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) study. Nationally representative data were collected in 2002 using a standardized questionnaire. The moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity screening measure was used. RESULTS: Approximately one-fifth of the pupils in both countries had a long-term disability, illness or medical condition. In both countries boys and girls with a long-term illness or disability were equally physically inactive, and adolescents with a long-term illness or disability were as physically active as those without disabilities. CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between young people with and without long-term illness/disability, and between boys and girls, in relation to their physical activity. However, all of them fall short of recommended guidelines. This indicates that promoting a physically active lifestyle should be of high priority in the lives of young people.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".