Few Canadian children and youth were meeting the 24-hour movement behaviour guidelines 6-months into the COVID-19 pandemic: Follow-up from a national study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily life has changed for families due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this repeated cross-sectional study was to describe movement behaviours in Canadian children and youth 6 months into the pandemic (T2; October 2020) compared with the start of the pandemic (T1, April 2020). An online survey was distributed to parents (N = 1568) of children and/or youth (5–17 years; 58% girls) in October 2020. The survey assessed changes in movement behaviours (physical activity and play, sedentary behaviours, and sleep) from before the pandemic to October 2020 (T2). We compared these data with spring data (T1; April 2020; Moore et al. 2020; Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act, 17:85) collected using identical methodology (N = 1472; 54% girls). We report correlations between movement behaviours and relevant parental factors and provide word frequency distributions for open-ended responses. During the second wave, 4.5% of children (4.6% girls; 4.3% boys) and 1.9% of youth (1.3% girls, 2.4% boys) met the movement guidelines (3.1% overall). Whereas, during the first wave, 4.8% (2.8% girls, 6.5% boys) of children and 0.6% (0.8% girls, 0.5% boys) of youth were meeting combined guidelines (2.6% overall). Parental support was correlated with their child’s movement behaviours (T1 and T2). Our study demonstrates the ongoing challenges for children and youth to engage in healthy movement during the pandemic. Novelty: Our large-scale national study demonstrates that children and youth were not meeting the 24-hour movement guidelines during the second wave of the pandemic. Our findings illustrate the need to protect children and youth from the collateral consequences of the pandemic.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".