Physical activity of Canadian children and youth, 2007 to 2015.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study describes and compares the percentages of Canadian children and youth who adhere to different operational definitions of the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) recommendation of 60 minutes per day. DATA AND METHODS: Data for 6- to 17-year-olds (n = 5,608) were collected from 2007 through 2015 as part of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. MVPA was measured using the Actical accelerometer. The MVPA recommendation was operationalized as accumulating 60 minutes of MVPA every day, on most days, and on average. RESULTS: Data from the most recent cycle of the Canadian Health Measures Survey indicate that 7% of children and youth accumulated at least 60 minutes of MVPA on at least 6 out of 7 days, and 33% achieved a weekly average of at least 60 minutes per day. Boys accumulated more MVPA than did girls, and 6- to 11-year-olds accumulated more MVPA than did 12- to 17-year-olds. Regardless of how adherence to the recommendation is operationalized, MVPA levels among Canadian children and youth did not change over the 9-year period from 2007 to 2015. INTERPRETATION: The majority of Canadian children do not meet the physical activity recommendation, regardless of the operational definition used. However, the discrepancies between results based on different interpretations of the 60-minutes-per-day recommendation highlight the importance of explicitly reporting how recommendations are operationalized to avoid misinterpreting trends and comparisons.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".