Physical activity and sedentary behaviour of Canadian children aged 3 to 5.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For preschool children, physical activity is associated with improved measures of health, while sedentary behaviour is associated with less favourable health outcomes. This study updates estimates of physical activity and sedentary behaviour among children aged 3 to 5, based on combined data from two cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) in order to calculate adherence to Canadian physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. DATA AND METHODS: The data are from two independent samples that comprised the 2009-to-2011 (cycle 2) and 2012/2013 (cycle 3) CHMS. Accelerometry and a parent-administered questionnaire were used in both cycles on children aged 3 to 5. Accelerometer data, collected in 60-second epochs in cycle 2 and in 15-second epochs in cycle 3, were combined using an adjustment factor derived in an independent sample. Prevalence of adherence to the physical activity guidelines, according to the accelerometer data, was estimated based on a Betabinomial distribution. Adherence to the screen-time component of the sedentary behaviour guidelines was calculated using parent reports. Results are presented by personal and household-related covariates. RESULTS: An estimated 73% of 3- to 4-year-olds and 30% of 5-year-olds met their respective physical activity guidelines. Screen-time targets were met by 22% of 3- to 4-year-olds and 76% of 5-year-olds. INTERPRETATION: Because they rely on a larger sample size and stronger estimation methods, the findings of this study are more robust than previously published estimates. Results reveal room for improvement, particularly 5-year-olds' physical activity and 3- to 4-year-olds' screen time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".