Movement behaviours, breakfast consumption, and fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is recommended that children and adolescents spend ≥ 60 min per day of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, ≤ 2 h per day of recreational screen time, and 9-11 h of sleep per night for school-aged children or 8-10 h per night for adolescents. The objective of this study was to examine the associations of compliance with physical activity, screen time, and sleep duration recommendations with the frequencies of breakfast consumption and fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents. METHODS: Data from a cross-sectional and province-wide survey of students in grades 7-12 in Ontario (Canada) were used for this analysis (n = 12,759 students; 15.2 ± 1.8 years; 56% females). Movement behaviours and eating habits were self-reported. Multivariable ordered logistic regression analyses were adjusted for age, sex, ethnoracial background, subjective socioeconomic status, and body mass index z-score. RESULTS: Compliance with all three recommendations was associated with more frequent breakfast consumption (OR: 2.77; 95% CI: 2.17-3.55) and fruit and vegetable intake (OR: 2.95; 95% CI: 2.41-3.62) compared with compliance with none of the recommendations. Compliance with the different combinations of recommendations was also associated with more frequent breakfast consumption and fruit and vegetable intake, with some exceptions. There was a dose-response gradient between the number of recommendations met (3 > 2 > 1) and more frequent breakfast consumption (p < 0.001) and fruit and vegetable intake (p < 0.001), with compliance with all three recommendations being the best combination. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that compliance with the physical activity, screen time, and sleep duration recommendations is associated with more frequent breakfast consumption and fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".