Children in organized hockey: How much physical activity do they really get?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 8(2): 184-191, 2015. For optimal physical and mental health and child growth, development and maturation, the Canadian physical activity guidelines recommend children participate in minimally 60 minutes of moderate intense physical activity each day. It is often believed that children’s participation in sport provides sufficient physical activity to meet these recommendations. The purpose of this study was to measure the amount and intensity of physical activity obtained by children participating in a regularly scheduled ice hockey practice and game. Actigraph GT3X triaxial accelerometers (motion detectors) were used to determine the intensity and amount of physical activity obtained by 9- and 10-year old children (16 boys; 1 girl) during an ice hockey practice and game. Downloaded accelerometer counts were converted to minutes of moderate, hard, or very-hard physical activity. On average, participants spent 30.2 ± 10.8 min or 43.1% of their 70-min ice hockey practice and 22.3 ± 6.3 min or 28.2% of their 80-min ice hockey game in moderate or more intense physical activity. Children’s participation in one session of organized ice hockey, whether a practice or a game, did not meet the minimal daily physical activity recommendation for children. Thus parents, teachers, coaches, and physical activity practitioners must create, support, and encourage additional opportunities for children to engage in physical activity of sufficient intensity for optimal growth and development and to ensure physical and mental health and well-being.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".