Results from South Korea's 2018 Report Card on physical activity for children and youth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: is the second comprehensive evaluation of physical activity and the sources of influence based on the 10 core indicators provided by the Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance. It will serve as an advocacy tool to promote physical activity among children and youth. METHODS: Three national surveillance data (i.e., 2017 Korea Youth Risk Behavior Web-based Survey, 2016 Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2016 Physical Activity Promotion System) were used as main sources to evaluate the indicators. Descriptive statistics were performed to obtain prevalence estimates of physical activity-related indicators. In addition, expert opinions as well as the most recently available published or unpublished relevant sources were synthesized. RESULTS: South Korea's 2018 Report Card, compared to the 2016 Report Card, showed favourable changes in the Active Transportation (B+), Organized Sports Participation (C), Sedentary Behaviours (D), and School (D+) indicators, while unfavourable changes were shown in Overall Physical Activity (F) and Government (D). Physical Fitness was graded as D+. In parallel with the 2016 Report Card, Active Play, Family and Peers, and Community and Environment remain ungraded due to insufficient data. CONCLUSIONS: Successes as well as gaps and research needs were identified in the 2018 Report Card. Though some indicators have shown improvement, most children and youth continue to be insufficiently physically active with overall poor grades (Average of D+). To achieve substantial improvement in all grades in future Report Cards, more institutional and governmental support and investment is needed to promote physical activity. Furthermore, effort should be made to generate data pertaining to the indicators that were ungraded.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
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".