MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411657830 · doi:10.32604/ijmhp.2025.064984

Is Meeting 24-Hour Movement Guidelines Associated with Emotion Regulation among Children and Adolescents?

2025· article· en· W4411657830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shanshan Xu, Hu L

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mental Health Promotion · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Canadian 24-h movement guidelines (24-HMG) emphasize the holistic consideration of physical activity (PA), sedentary behavior, and sleep in shaping health outcomes. This study aimed to examine the associations between meeting 24-HMG and emotion regulation-related indicators among children and adolescents. Methods: A total of 534 Chinese children and adolescents aged 12.94 ± 1.10 years (49.81% males) participated in this study and completed self-report measures assessing 24-h movement behaviors, emotion regulation strategies, emotion regulation flexibility, and regulatory emotional self-efficacy. Results: Only 7.12% of the participants adhered to two or all three guidelines. The number of guidelines met was positively associated with the use of emotion regulation strategies, emotion regulation flexibility, and regulatory emotional self-efficacy. Compared with meeting none of the guidelines, participants who met one or more guidelines reported significantly better performance in these outcomes. Conclusion: Meeting 24-HMG was associated with superior emotion regulation in children and adolescents. The importance of engaging in regular PA, limiting recreational screen time, and getting enough sleep should be highlighted for fostering emotion regulation in this demographic.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.326 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mental Health PromotionSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207