Examining the Potential Disconnect Between Parents’ Perceptions and Reality Regarding the Physical Activity Levels of Their Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parental support plays an important role in facilitating the participation of children in physical activity. However, there is evidence that parents overestimate their child’s level of physical activity – this may lead to inaction in promotion attempts by parents. This potential disconnect between parental perceptions and reality was recently the focus of the ‘Think Again’ social marketing campaign developed by PartipACTION. Purpose: To qualitatively explore parents’ perceptions of the Think Again advertisements, and the possible disconnect between perceptions and reality regarding their children’s physical activity levels. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 mothers and 12 fathers of children aged 5-11 years attending a supervised recreation class. A thematic analysis was applied to the collected data. Results: The advertisements were generally well received by the parents in serving as a reminder of how much physical activity their children should be getting. Less than half of parents believed their children were attaining physical activity guidelines although the majority believed they were sufficiently active given perceived time constraints for both them and their child. Most parents believed they could accurately estimate how active their child was but that other parents may have difficulty due to reliance on schools and organized recreation to provide opportunities for physical activity. Conclusion: PSAs have a role to play in increasing parental awareness of physical activity guidelines and communicating the importance of physical activity. More creative approaches will be needed to address the disconnect in the perceptions between sufficient and recommended levels of physical activity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".