The 3‐Year Longitudinal Impact of Sedentary Behavior on the Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior is linked to many adverse health outcomes; however, its relationship with academic achievement is less understood. We examined sedentary behavior's impact on academic achievement over 3 years in 4408 adolescents from the COMPASS study. METHODS: Sedentary behavior (screen-based: watching/streaming television shows/movies, video/computer games, surfing the internet; communication-based: texting/messaging/emailing, talking on the phone; and doing homework) and academic achievement (overall math and English marks) were self-reported. RESULTS: Holding time fixed, moving from the lowest quartile (Q1) to Q2, Q3, or Q4 of watching/streaming television shows/movies (Q2: OR = 0.90; 95%CI: 0.84-0.97, Q3: OR = 0.85; 95%CI: 0.74-0.98, Q4: OR = 0.74; 95%CI: 0.64-0.85) or to Q2 of surfing the internet (Q2: OR = 0.87; 95%CI: 0.78-0.97) decreased the likelihood of surpassing English standards. Moving from Q1 to Q2 of communication-based sedentary behavior (OR = 0.90; 95%CI: 0.82-0.99) decreased the likelihood of surpassing math standards. Moving from Q1 to Q4 (OR = 1.31; 95%CI: 1.15-1.50) of watching/streaming television shows/movies increased the likelihood of surpassing math standards. Moving from Q1 to Q4 of doing homework (OR = 1.16; 95%CI: 1.02-1.31) increased the likelihood of surpassing English standards. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting academic achievement from total sedentary behavior is challenging. Targeting specific types of sedentary behavior should be considered for improving math and English achievement.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it