Exploring attention to the Canadian 24‐Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth using eye‐tracking: A randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth ("Guidelines") not only pioneered the notion of an integrated movement continuum from sleep to vigorous-intensity physical activity but also introduced a new branded Guideline visual identity. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated youths' (N = 46) attention to and thoughts about the Guidelines and the brand. DESIGN: A cross-sectional between-participants randomized intervention design was used. SAMPLE: Canadian youth between 10 and 17 years of age comprised the study sample. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to view either branded Guidelines (n = 26) or unbranded Guidelines (n = 20). Youths' eye-movements (e.g., dwell time, fixation count) were recorded during Guideline viewing. Participants completed a follow-up survey assessing brand perceptions and Guideline cognitions. RESULTS: The branded Guidelines neither drew greater overall attention nor led to more positive brand perceptions or Guideline cognitions compared to the unbranded Guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Exploratory analyses provide valuable, yet preliminary insight into how branding and Guideline content may shape how Guidelines are perceived and acted upon. These findings inform an agenda for future health education resources.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".