Assessing Change In Indicators Of Child And Youth Physical Activity In Canada, 2005-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ParticipACTION Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth is an annual, comprehensive assessment of the current status of child and youth physical activity in Canada. Published for 11 consecutive years, the Report Card assigns letter grades to various indicators of physical activity. A temporal trend analysis of these indicators may help Canadian stakeholders gage progress and focus their physical activity promotion efforts. PURPOSE: To assess the change in indicators of child and youth physical activity in Canada from 2005 to 2015. METHODS: For every year the Report Card was released, an interdisciplinary Report Card Research Committee was involved in developing the indicators and assigning letter grades based on an examination of the current data and literature in Canada against a benchmark or optimal scenario. Indicators varied by year and were collapsed into one of 10 indicators for this analysis (overall physical activity, organized sport participation, active play, active transportation, sedentary behaviours, support from family and peers, school, community and environment, government, non-government). Letter grades were converted to numeric ordinal scores (A = 5, B = 4, C = 3, D = 2, F = 1). Net delta (δ) scores were then calculated by subtracting ordinal scores year over year and summing them. RESULTS: Of the 5 behavioural indicators, only 2 underwent a net change to their grades (δ organized sport participation = +1, δ sedentary behaviours = 1). All of the settings indicators (δ family and peers = +1, δ school = +2, δ community and environment = +1) and strategies and investments indicators (δ government = +1, δ non-government = +2) underwent positive net grade changes. CONCLUSION: Several positive changes in grades have been observed in the Report Card over the past 11 years, which is encouraging; however, the mostly structural changes are not translating into substantial change at the behavioural level. Canadian stakeholders are encouraged to focus their efforts on physical activity promotion that directly targets physical activity behaviours in children and youth.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".