Sociodemographic Factors Associated With Meeting the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines Among Adults: Findings From the Canadian Health Measures Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined associations between sociodemographic factors and meeting versus not meeting the new Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines recommendations. METHODS: The study is based on 7651 respondents aged 18-79 years from the 2007 to 2013 Canadian Health Measures Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey. Sociodemographic factors included age, sex, household education, household income, race, having a chronic condition, smoking status, alcohol consumption, and body mass index. Participants were classified as meeting or not meeting each of the time-specific recommendations for moderate to vigorous physical activity, sedentary behavior, and sleep duration. RESULTS: Being an adult aged 18-64 years, normal weight, nonsmoker, and not having a chronic condition were associated with meeting the integrated guidelines. Being aged 18-64 years, male, normal weight, nonsmoker, not having a chronic condition, having a higher household education, and higher household income were associated with meeting the moderate to vigorous physical activity recommendation; being aged 18-64 years was associated with meeting the sedentary behavior recommendation; and being white, not having a chronic condition, and having a higher household income were associated with meeting the sleep duration recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Few Canadian adults met the 2020 Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines, and disparities across sociodemographic factors exist. Implementation strategies and dissemination approaches to encourage uptake and adoption are necessary.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".