Peer Review #2 of "Parental encouragement is positively associated with outdoor active play outside of school hours among 7–12 year olds (v0.1)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity is important for children's physical, mental, and social wellbeing.Outdoor active play is an important yet unstudied domain of children's physical activity.The objective of this study was to determine if parental encouragement is associated with the frequency that children engage in outdoor active play outside of school hours.Methods: Participants consisted of 514 children aged 7-12 years and one of their parents.Parents completed a survey that included four questions that assessed how frequently they used verbal cues to encourage their child to play outdoors.Points were assigned to each response and averaged across the 4 questions, and based on this average participants were assigned to quintiles.The survey included seven questions that asked parents to assess how frequently their child played outdoors outside of school hours.Points were assigned to each response and summed to create an active outdoor play frequency score.General linear models assessed associations between parental encouragement and outdoor play while controlling for individual, family, and neighborhood covariates.Results: The mean outdoor active play frequency score increased significantly across quintiles of the parental encouragement score as follows: 6.0 (standard error = 0.7) in quintile 1, 9.8 (0.6) in quintile 2, 11.4 (0.6) in quintile 3, 16.2 (0.9) in quintile 4, and 23.3 (1.3) in quintile 5.After adjusting for confounding variables, the mean outdoor active play frequency score was almost three times higher in the highest parental encouragement quintile than in the lowest quintile (20.4 vs. 7.8).Conclusions: Parents use of verbal cues to encourage their children to play outdoors was independently associated with outdoor active play among 7-12 year olds.
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 | 0.016 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.293 | 0.111 |
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".