Children’s Physical Activity during COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada: Parents’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large influence on children’s physical activity (i.e., play and sport) opportunities. The purpose of this study was to describe parents’ perspectives of their children’s (ages 0–12) physical activity experiences during the pandemic (i.e., since the onset in March 2020 until follow-up survey completion date [between August to December 2021]). As part of the ‘Return to Play’ study conducted in Ontario, Canada, two-parent report surveys were completed online via Qualtrics. Surveys measured parents’ perspectives regarding their children’s physical activity since the onset of the pandemic (n = 17 items) and collected demographic information (n = 16 items). Open-ended questions were included to gather a rich understanding of parents’ experiences (i.e., supports, challenges) with facilitating their children’s physical activity. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe parents’ perspectives of their children’s physical activity experiences and to determine parent demographics. Open-ended questions were analyzed via deductive content analysis. Parents (n = 382) reported that they noticed behavior changes in their children because of the pandemic (65.9%), and most (73.7%) reported challenges with supporting their children’s activity during periods when public health measures were in place. Many parents (44.5%) stated that their children asked about returning to play/sport more than three times per week during periods when play/sport facilities were closed in Ontario. Qualitative data identified common supports parents used (e.g., getting active outdoors, forming mini social ‘bubbles’), and challenges they faced (e.g., work, children’s increased screen time, and home schooling), pertaining to their children’s physical activity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".