MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768430259

Organized sport and physical activity participation and free play in children and youth: A test of the over-scheduling hypothesis using longitudinal data

2017· article· en· W2768430259 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rheanna Bulten, John Cairney, Sara King‐Dowling, Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)PsychologyPositive Youth DevelopmentPhysical activityAnthropometryCohortDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyPhysical therapyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between organized sport participation and positive youth development is well established in current literature. However, too much involvement in sport has been identified as having a potentially negative impact. Over-scheduling and its impact on free play is one concern, given the importance of the latter to overall health and development. At present, it is not known if higher participation in organized sport has a positive or negative effect on discretionary play in youth. The Physical Health and Activity Study Team (PHAST) study is a six-year, longitudinal cohort study investigating organized and discretionary physical activity, motor competence, aerobic fitness and anthropometry in 2278 consented fourth grade children (ages 9 to 10) enrolled in public school in Southern Ontario. Using mixed effects modeling, we found that higher participation in organized sport was associated with increased participation in free play over time (Coef = 0.16, p

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207