Parents' perceptions of Ontario's daily physical activity (dpa) policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests 42 to 50% of elementary teachers adhere to Ontario's DPA policy (McGoey, 2016; Public Health Ontario, 2015). While parents are key partners in school policies (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2006) and play an influential role in their children's physical activity (PA) (Janssen, 2015); teachers identified a lack of parental engagement as a barrier to DPA implementation (McGoey, 2016). This study employed an online survey to explore parents' (n = 172) awareness of and beliefs about Ontario's DPA policy, their perceptions of the roles of school and family for children's PA, and to determine whether or not their frequency of support surrounding PA influence these outcomes. A PA index was calculated to reflect the relative contributions of home and school to children's overall PA. Despite poor awareness of the policy, parents perceived the school's role in PA promotion to be greater than the family's (Z = -2.662, p < .01), and 50% relied on schools for at least an equal contribution to their children's PA. Parents who supported an active lifestyle were more likely to believe that family plays an important role (Β = 3.39, p = .001), and less likely to rely on schools for their children's PA (L= .67, χ2 (16) = 47.84, p < .001, discriminant function coefficient = .60). Conversely, parents who reported more barriers to home-based PA were more likely to rely on schools for their children's PA (discriminant function coefficient = .47). Parent-focused strategies that increase awareness and engagement in school-based PA may enhance DPA implementation and children's PA levels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".