Mother knows best? Parents' perceptions of children's physical activity levels and preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parents are the ‘gate-keepers’ to young children’s physical activity (PA) and knowledge of their children’s PA levels and preferences may impact the PA opportunities they provide. The current study examined children’s PA preferences (considering sex and grade variations) and the discrepancy between children’s preferences and parents’ perceptions. Method: Cross-sectional data were collected from 2,363 children (grades 1-4) and their parents. Children reported their PA preferences and PA levels relative to other students. Parents’ reported perceptions of their children’s PA preferences and levels. Results: Chi-square analyses were conducted to examine sex and grade variations in a) children’s activity preferences, and b) parents’ perceptions of children’s preferences. An additional series of chi-square analyses were conducted to compare children’s preferences with parents’ perceptions. Most boys and girls reported being less physically active than others, while most parents reported that their children were more physically active compared to other children (boys x2=11.79, df=4, p =.03; girls x2= 7.81, df=4, p = .091). The large majority of boys and girls reported that they liked sports, while significantly fewer parents perceived that their children like sports (boys x2=66.63, df=4, p <.001; girls x2= 28.17, df=4, p <.001). Conclusion: Parents’ perceptions of children’s PA levels and preferences are often not aligned with the preferences of their children. Inaccurate parental perceptions have the potential to be detrimental with regard to the PA opportunities parents provide for their children.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".