Physical Activity Participation and Nutrition and Physical Activity Knowledge in University Dance Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess participation in physical activity and knowledge of general nutrition and current public health messages about the health benefits of physical activity in university dance students, and to investigate differences between first-year and later-year students and between students in dance and dance performance course groups. METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited 67 participants from dance undergraduate degrees in a university in Australia. Nutrition knowledge was assessed using the General Nutrition Knowledge Questionnaire. Physical activity participation and awareness of its benefits were assessed using the Active Australia Survey. RESULTS: Results indicate low nutrition knowledge among dance students, with 47% and 52% of responses correct in dance and dance performance students, respectively. Nutrition knowledge did not vary between students in first or later years. Self-reported participation in moderate and vigorous physical activity varied substantially and met or exceeded recommendations based upon duration and frequency for 98% of participants. However, awareness of physical activity messages varied, with dance students more likely to disagree about the level of activity needed for health benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Dance students report varying levels of physical activity that usually met or exceeded recommendations; however, knowledge of general nutrition and physical activity benefits was low. Improved knowledge could contribute to changes in behavior that improve health status in 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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".