Encouraging kids to hop, skip, and jump: Emphasizing the need for higher-intensity physical activity in childcare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily physical activity (PA) participation is crucial to the health and well-being of young children. Along with total physical activity (TPA; all-intensity), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), or energetic play, is associated with greater health benefits, particularly for preschoolers (3–4 years), including but not limited to improved bone and skeletal properties and cognitive and psychosocial health.1 Centered on this, both Canada and Australia have recently established 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for the Early Years, recommending that children 2–4 years engage in at least 180 min of any-intensity activity per day, with children 3 years and older spending a minimum of 60 min of this time in higher-intensity energetic play.2, 3 To date, activity promotion among this cohort has focused on increasing movement at any intensity. In light of the recent shift in focus to higher-intensity activity, steps are warranted to augment time spent in developmentally appropriate energetic play, focusing on a variety of unstructured (e.g., active free play)4 and structured aerobic activities (e.g., dance) for optimal health.1 Introducing regular, higher-intensity activity from a young age will set children on the right track to meeting PA guidelines across the lifespan.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".