Results from Nepal’s 2018 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Nepal's Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth summarises the available evidence on ten physical activity-related indicators among Nepalese children and youth. METHODS: Published scientific papers on physical activity of Nepalese children and youth (5-17 years) were searched systematically in four databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed Central) while some survey reports were manually searched. Letter grades were assigned to ten indicators (Overall Physical Activity, Organized Sport Participation, Active Play, Active Transportation, Sedentary Behaviours, Physical Fitness, Family and Peers, School, Community and Environment, and Government) by the country's report card team based on available data. RESULTS: Among the ten indicators, five indicators were successfully graded based on available data. Overall Physical Activity was graded as D+. Active Transportation and Family and Peers were assigned as A- and A, respectively. Community and Environment was graded as C-. The other five indicators could not be graded due to insufficient data. CONCLUSIONS: Though a majority of Nepalese children and youth use active modes of transport and have adequate support for physical activity from family and peers, overall participation in physical activity appears to be low. Lack of data identified with five incomplete indicators reflects the need for further research. Studies with larger sample, more rigorous study design and objective assessment of physical activity is recommended for future physical activity surveillance in Nepal.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it