Patterns of Physical Activity Parenting Practices and Their Association With Children's Physical Activity Behaviors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little is known about how parents combine multiple physical activity (PA) parenting practices (PAPP) and their relationship with their child's activity level. This study examined patterns of PAPP and their associations with sociodemographic characteristics and children's PA. Methods: Parents of 5- to 12-year-olds ( n = 618) completed the 65-items PAPP item-bank assessing their use of structured, autonomy promoting, and controlling PAPP, and reported their child's PA. Latent class analysis was used to uncover similar groups of parents based on their use of nine PAPP. Regression analyses evaluated associations between the latent classes, sociodemographic factors, and children's PA. Results: Four latent classes emerged: (1) Indifferent (30%)—parents who were unlikely to use any of the PAPP examined; (2) Coercive (23%)—parents using primarily controlling PAPP; (3) Involved (19%)—parents using most PAPP examined; and (4) Supportive (28%)—parents using primarily structured and autonomy promoting PAPP. Involved parents were younger than Indifferent and Supportive parents. Supportive parents reported the highest level of children's PA compared with all other groups, whereas Coercive parents reported the lowest level of children's PA. Conclusions: Our findings showed that different latent classes exist among Canadian parents and that the combination of structured and autonomy promoting PAPP, when used without control, was associated with the highest PA level among children. The emergent latent classes are novel, theoretically meaningful, and key to inform family-based PA interventions.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it