Physical Activity and Nutrition in Early Years Care Centres: Barriers and Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity and good nutrition are key components of healthy living and reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases. Current research indicates that young Canadian children are not active enough for healthy growth and development (Temple et al., 2009). In addition their diets are lacking in fruits and vegetables, and excessively high in processed foods. Parents play a key role in establishing healthy behaviours; however early years professionals also have a strong influence, as many young children spend a large portion of their day in child care centres. This study aimed to use an ecological framework to identify specific factors (facilitators and barriers) that professionals in urban child care centres faced when promoting physical activity and nutrition. Seven urban child care centre professionals participated in one on one semi-structured interviews, with questions developed around McLeroy’s (1988) ecological model. Reported acilitators and barriers were categorized using the ecological model at individual level (i.e., intrapersonal) or social environmental (interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy) level. The classification of factors into distinct categories was important, as this information can aid in designing initiatives that target.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".