Practical steps needed to achieve impact of the WHO 2019 movement behaviour guidelines for children under the age of 5: the SUNRISE Study Europe Group evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for the ‘24-h movement behaviours’1 (physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB) including screen time, and sleep) in the under-5s were published in April 2019 (Supplementary Figure S1).2 The guidelines were developed as a response to the childhood obesity pandemic,2 to help ensure that under-5s have healthy levels of PA, screen time, and sleep. Evidence review and synthesis showed that these behaviours influenced a wide range of other outcomes, with substantial short-term and long-term consequences (e.g., cognitive, social and emotional development; language development; cardiometabolic health; bone and skeletal health; motor development; physical fitness; growth; and wellbeing).2 Five years later, it is now appropriate to test whether key actions in response to these guidelines were taken across Europe, and to consider ways of increasing the impact of the WHO Guidelines across Europe in the next 5 years. Therefore, the SUNRISE Study Europe Group considered three tests to examine if European public health policy and clinical practice were sufficiently responsive to the WHO Guidelines: (1) Do European nations have national guidelines for the movement behaviours in the under-5s or have they adopted/adapted the WHO Guidelines? (2) Do they have adequate surveillance of the movement behaviours in these age groups? (3) Do they have specific movement behaviour policies for children under-5?
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 | 0.194 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.003 |
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".