Examining differences in parents' perceptions of children's physical activity versus screen time guidelines and behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Most Canadian and Australian children do not meet Physical Activity Guidelines (PAG) or Screen Time Guidelines (STG). Regarding the social issue advertising believability model (SIABM), parental support for these behaviours may depend upon how believable parents find guideline messages. The aim of the study was to examine differences in parents' SIABM variables and perceived behavioural control for PAG and STG messages. METHODS: Data were collected online; 499 Canadian parents with at least one child aged 5-11 years (75.6% mothers) participated. Differences in model variables were analysed using analyses of variance. RESULTS: Parents demonstrated greater issue involvement, attitudes towards the issue, parental support attitudes and perceived behavioural control for the PAG compared to the STG (d > 0.10). Mothers believed the messages more and had more favourable attitudes towards the issues as compared to fathers (d > 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Parents' evaluations of PAG messages and corresponding supportive behaviours were generally more positive than STG. Future messages should emphasise supportive behaviours for screen time reduction that are feasible and enjoyable for children.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".