Perceptions of inclusivity: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth (ages 5-17) integrate the evidence-based daily requirements for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep into one comprehensive resource. Children and youth with disabilities (CYWD) are less active and more sedentary than able-bodied children. It is thus important that health resources are developed and marketed to be inclusive and accessible to CYWD. The primary objective of this study is to explore whether parents of CYWD consider the movement recommendations presented in the guidelines as inclusive for CYWD. The secondary objective of this study is to explore whether parents consider the visual identity (concept brand) of the guidelines inclusive for CYWD. 15 mothers of CYWD participated in the study, which consisted of one 60-minute semi-structured in-person or telephone interview. The diffusion of innovation theory provided a theoretical basis for the interview questions and a thematic analysis was conducted. Seven themes were identified. The results indicate that participants perceived the integrated concept favorably because it is simple to understand and visually appealing. The results, however, also indicate that the guideline recommendations and the brand messaging strategy are not inclusive or compatible with the abilities, needs, and previous experiences of CYWD. Revisions may be necessary to promote inclusion and uptake of the guidelines recommendations amongst CYWD. For example, the guidelines may need to acknowledge inter-individual differences and include examples (lists and images) of inclusive and adaptable activities for CYWD.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".