MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156723115 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.10326

Perceptions of Inclusivity: The 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth

2018· article· en· W3156723115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Handler

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisPerceptionPsychologyPopulationMedical educationPhysical activityApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchMedicinePhysical therapySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In June 2016, Tremblay et al. published the first 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth. These guidelines integrate the daily requirements for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep into one comprehensive resource. Children with disabilities are less active and more sedentary than able-bodied individuals. Thus, it is important that health resources are developed and marketed to be inclusive and accessible to this population. The primary purpose of the study is to explore whether parents consider the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth inclusive for children with disabilities. The secondary purpose is to assess whether these perceptions influence the decision to implement the guidelines. One 60-minute semi-structured in-person or telephone interview will be conducted with parents of children with disabilities. The diffusion of innovation theory will provide a theoretical basis for the interview questions and a thematic analysis will be used to analyze the results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207