Physical activity and sedentary time among young children in full-day kindergarten: Comparing traditional and balanced day schedules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare physical activity and sedentary time among young children whose schools adhere to traditional (i.e. three outdoor playtimes = 70 minutes) versus balanced day (i.e. two outdoor playtimes = ~55 minutes) schedules in Ontario full-day kindergarten classrooms. Design: The project was part of a larger, 2-year cross-sectional study. Setting: Full-day kindergarten classrooms across London, Ontario, Canada. Methods: Participants included 113 young children (mean age = 4.69 years; standard deviation [ SD] = 0.66 years) from eligible full-day kindergarten programmes. Participants’ physical activity and sedentary data were collected using Actical accelerometers worn for five consecutive days during school hours only. Type of school schedule and periods of outdoor play were captured using the Environment and Policy Assessment and Observation tool. Results: Participants mean activity rates (i.e. sedentary time, light physical activity, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity [MVPA] and total physical activity [TPA]) during school hours were similar across both formats. Participants’ overall daily physical activity and sedentary time did not significantly differ across school schedule type ( p > .05); however, participants adhering to the traditional schedule accumulated significantly more TPA outdoors than those following the balanced day schedule. Conclusion: Neither schedule format appeared to be superior with regard to supporting overall daily physical activity nor minimising sedentary time in school, although children adhering to the traditional schedule format did accumulate more physical activity during periods of outdoor play. Regardless of schedule type, steps are warranted to encourage additional movement (and minimise sedentary behaviours) in the school setting by school and public health officials.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".