‘Ahhh it was like paradise, but inside’: children’s experiences and perceptions of a free physical activity program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As most Canadian children are not attaining the recommended 60 minutes of daily physical activity, it is imperative that affordable and accessible programs are implemented to help children become more physically active. Specifically, community-based programs that are free and easy to access have shown to be advantageous for promoting beneficial health behaviours at a population level. The Grade 5 ACT-i-Pass (G5AP) is a community-based physical activity program in the mid-sized Canadian city of London, Ontario that offers free programming to all grade 5 children (ages 9–11 years) at various recreational facilities across the city. The data from 28 focus groups with past G5AP participants (n = 101) were analysed to understand the influence of the program on children’s perceived physical activity levels, and to investigate the enablers and/or barriers that children believe influenced their participation in, or access to, G5AP programming. Five distinct themes were identified during the analysis, including two themes describing participants’ perceived changes to their physical activity levels (i.e. additional physical activity opportunities, and well-being and self-efficacy), and three themes explaining enablers and/or barriers to G5AP programming (i.e. program structure and implementation, spatial accessibility of programming, and social supports and constraints). The findings from the focus groups were used to generate recommendations for current and future community-based physical activity programs as a means to improve the health and well-being of children.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".