Physical activity and sedentary behavior legislation in Canadian childcare facilities: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Within the childcare sector, physical activity and sedentary behaviors are not legislated at a national level in Canada. Efforts have been undertaken to identify factors within childcare facilities which support and deter physical activity and sedentary behaviors. The purpose of this paper was to provide an amended review of the legislative landscape, at the provincial and territorial level, regarding physical activity and sedentary behaviors (via screen-viewing) in Canadian childcare centers. METHODS: Individual childcare acts and regulations for each province and territory were collected; documents were reviewed with a focus on sections devoted to child health, physical activity, screen time, play, and outdoor time. An extraction table was used to facilitate systematic data retrieval and comparisons across provinces and territories. RESULTS: Of the 13 provinces and territories, 8 (62%) have updated their childcare regulations in the past 5 years. All provinces provide general recommendations to afford gross motor movement; but the majority give no specific requirements for how much or at what intensity. Only 3 provinces (Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and Nova Scotia) explicitly mentioned daily physical activity while all provinces' and territories' required daily outdoor play. Only 1 province (New Brunswick) made mention of screen-viewing. CONCLUSIONS: The variability in childcare regulations results in different physical activity requirements across the country. By providing high-level targets for physical activity recommendations, by way of provincial/territorial legislation, staff would have a baseline from which to begin supporting more active behaviors among the children in their care. Future research is needed to support translating physical activity policies into improved activity levels among young children in childcare and the role of screen-viewing in these venues.
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 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.050 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".