MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409905940 · doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2025.101842

Canadian children and youth with disabilities are not meeting the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines: Cross-sectional results from the national physical activity measurement (NPAM) study for children and youth with disabilities

2025· article· en· W4409905940 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kelly P. Arbour‐Nicitopoulos, Rebecca Bassett‐Gunter, Maeghan E. James, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Sarah A. Moore, Christine Voss, Krista L. Best, Jennifer Leo, Emily Bremer, Kathleen A. Martin Ginis

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and health journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of AlbertaCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
FundersJumpstartSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCross-sectional studyPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDisability and health journalSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207