96 Are Children with Disabilities Meeting Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity is an important component of a healthy childhood for children with physical and intellectual disabilities. Canadian physical activity guidelines suggest a minimum of 60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity each day. We hypothesized that children with disabilities in our area are not meeting Canadian physical activity guidelines. Data on current levels of physical activity participation were obtained via a questionnaire completed by parents or caregivers from 36 families of children aged between 2 to 18 years with physical and/or intellectual disabilities ranging from mild to severe. Demographic data and barriers to participation were also explored. None of the children participated in sufficient physical activity to meet the Canadian physical activity guidelines with respect to frequency, duration, or intensity. This was independent of the severity and the nature of their disability (physical, intellectual, or both). Parent demographics revealed that 86% of the children were Canadian-born, 89% primarily spoke English at home, and at least 58% had a household income greater than the median for Calgary ($43,833). Participation was not correlated with household income. The most commonly identified barrier was “Programs not able to handle nature of disability.” Children with disabilities are not meeting Canadian physical activity guidelines, even within a primarily affluent, Canadian-born, and English-speaking sample. We plan to use the results of this study to inform local advocacy that work is still necessary to help reduce barriers and improve physical activity participation by children with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".