A comparative study of the physical activity guidelines for children and adolescents from five countries and WHO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presented a narrative review of the six latest sets of guidelines on physical activity for children and adolescents from Australia, Canada, China, the United Kingdom, the United States and WHO, and analysed the history of the development of the guidelines; the policy context in which the guidelines were developed; and the main subjects of the guidelines. The core elements of the latest guidelines were identified and compared, including frequency, intensity, duration (time), and type of physical activity, assessment intensity of physical activity, and risk prevention for physical activity participation. There is an urgent need for obtaining the latest scientific evidence to support and update the contents of the Chinese guidelines. We therefore make the following recommendations for future revisions of the Chinese guidelines based on the findings of this study: (1) to update the recommended frequency, intensity, duration, and type of physical activities that meet the needs for Chinese children and adolescents; (2) to update the methods for assessing physical activity intensity, and identifying and managing the risk factors in participating in physical activity; and (3) to incorporate analyses and reviews of school physical education curriculum for effectively achieving the adequate levels of physical activity.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".