The South African 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Birth to 5 Years: An Integration of Physical Activity, Sitting Behavior, Screen Time, and Sleep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In December 2018, the South African 24-hour movement guidelines for birth to 5 years were released. This article describes the process used to develop these guidelines. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation-ADOLOPMENT approach was followed, with some pragmatic adaptions, using the Australian guidelines for the early years as a starting point. A consensus panel, including stakeholders in early childhood development and academics, was formed to assist with the development process. RESULTS: At a face-to-face meeting of the panel, global and local literatures were considered. Following this meeting, a first draft of the guidelines (including a preamble) was formulated. Further reviews of these drafts by the panel were done via e-mail, and a working draft was sent out for stakeholder consultation. The guidelines and preamble were amended based on stakeholder input, and an infographic was designed. Practical "tips" documents were also developed for caregivers of birth to 5-year-olds and early childhood development practitioners. The guidelines (and accompanying documents) were released at a launch event and disseminated through various media channels. CONCLUSIONS: These are the first movement guidelines for South African and the first such guidelines for this age group from a low- and middle-income country.
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 | 0.016 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".