Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Recent studies indicate that physical activity levels among Ontario university students are about 35% to 42%. Furthermore, there is a sparsity of evidence on effective interventions to support increased physical activity among university students. The current study uses the Comprehensive School Health (CSH) framework for the analysis of current physical activity interventions at York University and provides four observations of an effective program. Methods. 249 York University undergraduate students (n = 153 women, n = 96 men) ages 18 – 42 (M = 19.92 years, SD = 2.99 for men; M = 19.96 years, SD = 2.61 for women) were recruited from the school of Kinesiology and Health Sciences. Participants were measured for their physical activity status and physical activity factors pertaining to the CSH framework via an online survey. Results. 67.9% of the participants were considered physically active, and 80.3% declared they would not “travel to the university only to engage in physical activity”. Additionally, 74.7% of the participants reported that they believed that they had enough information regarding physical activity, with 44.2% having been exposed to signs and posters about physical activity on campus. 49.4% of participants reported engaging in the school’s mandatory practicums (PKINs) with a resulting 125 minutes of average weekly physical activity. 16.9% of participants reported having received physical activity counseling and 83.1% did not. Conclusions. Based on the results of this study, an effective intervention to support increased physical activity among university students, in the case of York University, was one that fit well with the students’ academic schedule, did not rely on signs or posters for physical activity promotion, integrated itself into the curriculum, and would benefit from incorporating partnerships with healthcare professionals.
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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.448 | 0.187 |
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".