The Parental Blueprint: Early Childhood Lifestyle Habits and Family Factors Predict Opting for Middle Childhood Sport Involvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Early childhood is marked by rapid physical and cognitive development, underscoring the critical influence of parental choices in shaping habits, pastimes, and traditions. The World Health Organization highlights habits of physical activity, sleep, and screen use as modulators of healthy development and well-being in young children. As a first, this birth cohort study investigates the relationship between movement behaviors in toddlerhood and subsequent sport participation during middle childhood. METHODS: Participants are 930 boys and 926 girls from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development. Using a population-based analytical approach, we examined the relationship between parent-reported active leisure, sleep, and sedentary screen time at age 2 years and trajectory of sport participation between ages 6 and 10 years using sex-stratified linear regressions that account for a range of pre-existing individual and family confounding factors. RESULTS: Many child and family characteristics predicted early childhood movement behaviors, distinctly for boys and girls. Moreover, parental regulation of screen time during early childhood significantly influenced their decisions to enroll and encourage sport participation in sons during school age. Specifically, boys who spent more than 1 h/day on screens had 10% fewer chances of consistently participating in sport throughout middle childhood, even after accounting for adherence to other lifestyle habits. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that parental values regarding early childhood screen exposure are an effective potential target for intervention fostering healthy and active development. Future research should focus on parent and child motivations for sport involvement in the long-term.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".