Examining the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines among Adults with Intellectual Disability: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the extent to which adults with intellectual disability (ID) met the 2020 Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines. Fifteen adults (six females and nine males) participated in this nine-day observational study (age = 20-64 years) in 2021-2022, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sedentary time, and total sleep time were measured with a smartwatch to compare to the guidelines. A diary subjectively tracked physical activity. Of the 15 participants, 11 met the MVPA guidelines (73%), 4 met the sedentary behaviour guidelines (27%), 7 met the sleep guidelines (47%), and only 1 participant met all 3 of the guidelines (7%). There were no differences in physical activity or sleep between weekends and weekdays, or between males and females. Walking, cleaning dishes, and swimming were the most common types of physical activity performed by the participants. The findings of this pilot study indicate the need to improve sleep and reduce sedentary time in adults with ID. As most participants met the MVPA guidelines, few met the sedentary behaviour guidelines, and nearly half met the sleep guidelines, these data also demonstrate how important it is to assess all three aspects of the movement guidelines. All these behaviours have independent health benefits and risks, which interact to influence overall health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".