Adherence to the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines among 10- to 17-year-old Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth were released in 2016. They contain specific recommendations on the daily time that 5- to 17-year-olds should devote to moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, recreational screen time, and sleep. The objective of this study was to estimate the proportion of Canadians aged 10 to 17 years that meet the recommendations contained within the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 22 115 young people was examined. Movement behaviour data were self-reported. Adherence to the guideline recommendations were based on the following: accumulation of at least 60 minutes per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, no more than 2 hours per day of recreational screen time, and 9 to 11 hours/night of uninterrupted sleep for those aged 10 to 13 years or 8 to 10 hours/night for those aged 14 to 17 years. RESULTS: Only 3% of the sample met all three of the key recommendations contained in the guidelines. Twenty-five percent met two of the recommendations, 51% met one of the recommendations, and 21% met none of the three recommendations. More children and youth met recommendations for sleep duration (66%) than for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (35%) and screen time (8%). CONCLUSION: A small minority (< 3%) of Canadians aged 10 to 17 years met all three of the key recommendations contained in the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".