Results From Zimbabwe’s 2016 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The report card was a synthesis of the best available evidence on the performance of Zimbabwean children and youth on key physical activity (PA) indicators. The aim of this article was to summarize the results from the 2016 Zimbabwe Report Card. METHODS: The Report Card Working Group gathered and synthesized the best available evidence, met, discussed and assigned grades to 10 indicators based on the Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance global matrix grading system. RESULTS: The indicators were graded as follows: overall PA (C+), organized sport participation (B), active play (D+), active transportation (A-), sedentary behaviors (B), school (D), family and peers (Incomplete), community and the built environment (F), government (D) and nongovernmental organizations (Incomplete). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of children used active transport, played organized sports and engaged in acceptable levels of PA, most of them did not meet the recommended hours of unstructured/unorganized play per day. At present, there are limited data to accurately inform the Zimbabwe Report Card therefore studies employing robust research designs with representative samples are needed. Zimbabwe also needs to prioritize policies and investments that promote greater and safe participation in PA among 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 | 0.014 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".