MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313647891 · doi:10.1177/10105395221148851

Association Between 24-Hour Movement Guideline and Physical, Verbal, and Relational Forms of Bullying Among Chinese Adolescents

2023· article· en· W4313647891 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shiyun Chen, Kaixin Liang, Sitong Chen, Liuyue Huang, Xinli Chi

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal of Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBullying, Victimization, and Aggression
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Social Science Fund of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsGuidelineAssociation (psychology)OddsScreen timeHuman factors and ergonomicsOdds ratioInjury preventionMedicinePsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologyPhysical activityPhysical therapyLogistic regressionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth recommends specific guidance in physical activity, screen time, and sleep duration. The current research will further explore potential exposures between healthy movement and being involved in a bullying incident as a bully or a victim in a representative sample of adolescents in China. A total of 67 821 Chinese students (response rate = 98.4%) were included in this study (mean age = 13.04 years). The results showed that meeting sleep recommendation only, meeting screen time recommendation only, and meeting both these two recommendations might be protective factors against being bullied or bullying others. Meeting moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) recommendation only reported higher odds of being victims in all forms of bullying while meeting both MVPA and another combination of the guideline would relate to lower odds of being a bully and a bully-victim in all forms of bullying involvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal of Public HealthSame topicBullying, Victimization, and AggressionFrench-language works237,207