Results From Scotland’s 2016 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2016 Active Healthy Kids Scotland Report Card aims to improve surveillance of physical activity (PA), facilitate international comparisons, and encourage evidence-informed PA and health policy. METHODS: Active Healthy Kids Canada Report Card methodology was used: a search for data on child and adolescent PA and health published after the 2013 Scottish Report Card was carried out. Data sources were considered for grading if based on representative samples with prevalence estimates made using methods with low bias. Ten health behaviors/outcomes were graded on an A to F scale based on quintiles (prevalence meeting recommendations ≥80% graded A down to <20% graded F). RESULTS: Three of the seven Health Behaviors and Outcomes received F or F- grades: Overall PA, Sedentary Behavior, and Obesity. Active and Outdoor Play and Organized Sport Participation could not be graded. Active Commuting to School was graded C, and Diet was graded D-. Family and Peer Influence was graded D-; Perceived Safety and Availability of Space for PA as well as the National Policy Environment were more favorable (both B). CONCLUSIONS: Grades were identical to those in 2013. Scotland has a generally favorable environment for PA, but children and adolescents have low PA and high sedentary behavior. Gaps in surveillance included lack of objectively measured PA, no surveillance of moderate-to-vigorous PA in children, summary surveillance data not expressed in ways which match recommendations (eg, for PA in young children; for screen-time), and no surveillance of Sport Participation, Active and Outdoor Play, or Sitting. Scottish policy does not include sedentary behavior at present.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.013 |
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".