MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904489873 · doi:10.1123/apaq.2017-0190

Perceptions of Inclusivity: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth

2018· article· en· W2904489873 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lauren Handler, Emily M. Tennant, Guy Faulkner, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueAdapted Physical Activity Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)PsychologyGuidelinePhysical activityPerceptionKnowledge translationFoundation (evidence)Developmental psychologyMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPhysical therapyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth (age 5-17 yr) consolidate evidence-informed daily requirements for physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep into 1 comprehensive resource. The primary objective of this study was to explore how parents of children and youth with disabilities (CYWD) perceive the guidelines. The secondary objective was to explore whether parents consider the guideline branding to be inclusive. A total of 15 mothers of CYWD participated in one 60-min semistructured interview, either in person or by telephone. The diffusion-of-innovation theory provided a theoretical basis for the interview guide. Mothers' perspectives of the guidelines and branding are represented as seven themes. The results indicate that the guidelines and the branding are not inclusive or compatible with the abilities and needs of CYWD. Findings from this study provide a foundation for ongoing knowledge-translation activities aiming to address these limitations. Further revisions are necessary to promote full inclusion and uptake of the guidelines among 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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdapted Physical Activity QuarterlySame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207