Do kids move it, move it? Exploring grade and sex influences on movement behaviour during balanced school day nutrition breaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine primary (grades 1-3) and junior (grades 4-6) students' physical activity (PA) in the context of the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines (2016); specifically, their time spent in moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA; 'sweat'), light intensity PA (LPA; 'step'), and sedentary behaviour (SB; 'sit') during school day nutrition breaks. Children (n = 159; 52% girls) from two Northern Ontario elementary schools following the balanced school day schedule wore an omni-directional accelerometer (Philips Respironics ActiCal; sampling rate 2 sec) for 5 consecutive school days between March and June. Pre-determined cut-points (Colley et al., 2011) were used to calculate the amount of time spent in MVPA, LPA, and SB during the 40-minute nutrition/physical activity breaks. A 2 (Division) x 2 (Sex) MANOVA showed that students in the primary grades spent significantly more time in LPA than those in junior grades (F(1, 155) = 7.14, p < .05, n2 = .04), and junior grade students spent significantly more time in MVPA than primary (F(1, 155) = 3.98, p < .05, n2 = 0.02). Regardless of grade, boys displayed significantly more LPA and MVPA and less SB than girls (ps < .05, n2 = .07-.14). During each nutrition break, children were engaged in some form of PA for approximately 13 minutes (SD = 2.95) and accumulated 8-11% towards recommended daily MVPA. Further exploration of variations in play activities and patterns within school contexts may help to identify opportunities to tailor PA interventions to girls and younger children.Acknowledgments: This study was funded by a Nipissing University Internal Research Grant
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".