MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528838688 · doi:10.1007/s13142-016-0443-3

Physical activity for children in elementary schools: time for a rethink?

2016· article· en· W2528838688 on OpenAlexafffund
Mark R. Beauchamp, Ryan E. Rhodes, Claudio R. Nigg

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Behavioral Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthMichael Smith Health Research BCU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPopulationHealth psychologyIsolation (microbiology)Population healthPublic healthSign (mathematics)PoliticsContraindicationPsychologyPhysical activityScale (ratio)Public relationsPolitical scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicineNursingGeographyLawPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spite of the well-known benefits of physical activity, the vast majority of children in North America do not meet current international guidelines for accumulating sufficient health-enhancing physical activity. Indeed, despite considerable attention to this population health crisis, the current prevalence of inactivity, along with its concomitant health consequences, shows little sign of abating. In this paper, we identify acknowledged barriers to wide scale physical activity adoption and maintenance at the population level among children and propose a viable tripartite framework (albeit one that would require political support) that we hope will provide the basis for debate and implementation. We emphasize that each of these considerations, in isolation, would be insufficient to substantively address the problem, but when combined would ensure that all elementary school children (without any medical contraindication) are sufficiently active, rather than the minority of this population.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.020
Scholarly communication0.0170.018
Open science0.0050.010
Research integrity0.0130.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.316 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTranslational Behavioral MedicineSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207