Parents' participation in physical activity predicts maintenance of some, but not all, types of physical activity in offspring during early adolescence: A prospective longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to examine the longitudinal associations between parents' and youth's participation in physical activity (PA). METHODS: One hundred and ninety youth completed self-administered questionnaires 3 times per year from 2011 to 2015, and their parents completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire during a telephone interview once in 2011-2012. Data on youth's and parents' activities were classified as interdependent or coactive/independent. RESULTS: Youth with one or both parents who participated in interdependent activities were more likely to maintain participation in interdependent activities (hazard ratio (HR) = 3.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.30-10.17). Youth's sustained participation in coactive/independent activities was not associated with parents' participation in coactive/independent activities (HR = 0.97; 95%CI = 0.46-2.06). CONCLUSION: Longitudinal associations between parents' and youth's participation in PA differed across type of PA. Encouraging parents' participation in interdependent activities may promote sustained participation in interdependent activities in 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".