MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2429021849 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2016-0086

The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth: Implications for practitioners, professionals, and organizations

2016· article· en· W2429021849 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Jennifer L. Copeland, Jonathon R. Fowles, Lori Zehr, Mary Duggan, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCanadian Society for Exercise PhysiologyAcadia UniversityUniversity of LethbridgeCamosun CollegeChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsDisseminationPlan (archaeology)Information DisseminationGuidelineIntervention (counseling)BusinessPolitical scienceMedical educationPsychologyMedicineNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The new Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth emphasize the integration of all movement behaviours that occur over a whole day (i.e., light, moderate, and vigorous physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep). These guidelines shift the paradigm away from considering each behaviour in isolation. This concept of the "whole day matters" not only calls for a change in thinking about movement but also for redevelopment of dissemination and implementation practice. Past guideline launch activities largely have aimed to create awareness through passive dissemination strategies (e.g., Website posts, distribution of print resources). For the integrated guidelines to have public health impact, we must move beyond dissemination and raising of awareness to implementation and behaviour change. Shifting this focus requires new, innovative approaches to intervention, including interdisciplinary collaboration, policy change, and refocused service provision. The purpose of this paper is to identify practitioners, professionals, and organizations with potential to disseminate and/or implement the guidelines, discuss possible implementation strategies for each of these groups, and describe the few resources being developed and those needed to support dissemination and implementation efforts. This discussion makes readily apparent the need for a well-funded, comprehensive, long-term dissemination, implementation, and evaluation plan to ensure uptake and activation of the guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0100.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207