Does where you live matter? Leisure-time physical activity among Canadian youth: a multiple cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the population-wide distribution in the practice of leisure-time physical activity among Canadian youth and how physical activity level is influenced by contextual features of the environment. METHODS: We studied the self-reported leisure-time physical activity of 54 832 Canadians aged 12 to 17 years. Observations were structured according to a 4-level geographic hierarchy. The outcome studied was a dichotomous indicator that referred to achieving (or not) the recommended daily level of leisure-time physical activity. To investigate the influence of the contextual features, we conducted multilevel logistic regressions. RESULTS: For both girls and boys, significant variations were observed between health regions and between neighbourhoods within the provinces. Girls who lived in an urban setting showed lower odds of achieving the recommended physical activity level, as did those surveyed during the winter. Boys surveyed during the winter also showed lower odds of achieving the recommended level, but living in an urban setting had no effect on activity levels. Analysis of province-level residuals showed that girls living in Quebec were less likely to achieve the recommended activity level as compared with the national mean, and girls living in Ontario and British Columbia were more likely to achieve that threshold. Boys living in Ontario were more likely to achieve the recommended activity level as compared with the national mean. Youth had up to a 17% increased chance of achieving the recommended physical activity level if they lived in a context with a higher activity achievement level. INTERPRETATION: Leisure-time physical activity was associated with environmental factors at multiple geographic scales among Canadian youth. The variation was more important at the neighbourhood level. The results provide rationale for further investigation into how leisure-time physical activity is promoted in different contexts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".