Child Care Setting and Its Association With Policies and Practices That Promote Physical Activity and Physical Literacy in the Early Years in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is critical to early child development, and child care is a key setting for promotion. The authors investigated differences in daily PA and sedentary behavior practices as well as physical environments between family child care (FCC) and group child care (GCC) settings for children aged 3-5 years in Canada. METHODS: Group child care (n = 581) and FCC (n = 357) managers completed surveys assessing the implementation of PA promoting practices and description of their environments. Crosstabulation and chi-square tests of association were used to examine differences between GCC and FCC. RESULTS: The prevalence of facilities implementing 120 minutes of active play (odds ratio [OR] 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-3.15), <30 minutes on screens (OR 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.80), and 60-minute outdoors daily (OR 1.99; 95% CI, 1.4-2.9) was more likely in FCC compared with GCC. However, implementation of fundamental movement skill activities (OR 1.40; 95% CI, 1.01-1.92), breaking up prolonged sitting (OR 1.86; 95% CI, 1.36-2.5), and outdoor space for large group running games (OR 1.74; 95% CI, 1.07-2.83) were more likely in GCC. CONCLUSIONS: Child care setting was associated with daily PA and sedentary practices and outdoor space for PA. Interventions to support PA in child care should be tailored to different settings and the facilitators explored.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".