The influence of parental modeling on young children's physical activity and sedentary behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Early childhood is a critical period for establishing healthy active living behaviours for both current and later health. According to the socialization model of children’s behaviour, which is based on the social cognitive theory, parent’s behaviour has a direct influence on children’s behaviour. However, little research has examined the influence of parental modeling on young children’s physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Method: Participants were 738 parents of young children (≤ 5 years old) from the Kingston, Canada area. Physical activity and screen time for both parents and children and several socio-demographic variables were assessed via a parental questionnaire completed from May to September, 2011. Questions were adopted from national surveys conducted by Statistics Canada. Bivariate correlations and linear regression models, adjusting for several socio-demographic variables, were used to examine the relationship between parent and child physical activity and screen time. Results: Parent and child physical activity and sedentary behaviour were square root transformed to meet assumptions of normality. Significant bivariate correlations were observed between parent and child physical activity (r = 0.20) and screen time (r=0.27). After adjusting for child age, child sex, child care status, family structure (two-parent or single-parent home), and parental education, positive associations remained between parent and child physical activity (P<0.0001) and between parent and child screen time (P<0.0001). Relationships were consistent when examining boys and girls separately. Conclusions: These findings support the socialization model of children’s behaviour and suggest that parents may be important targets for establishing healthy active living behaviours in young children.Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful to all the parents and children who took part in the study. The authors would like to thank their partners from Kingston, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Public Health, Mary Jane Gordon, Connie Wowk, and Alison Bradshaw for their assistance with the logistical planning of the study. We would also like to thank Hoda Gharib for her help with data collection and entry. Valerie Carson was supported by a CIHR - Frederick Banting and Charles Best Doctoral Award. Ian Janssen was supported by a Canada Research Chair and this research was supported by funds received through that award.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".