24-Hour Movement Behaviours and Considerations of Disability: An Updated Review of Child Care Legislation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Child care is the primary environment in which many young children spend their time outside the family in Canada, and as such, plays an important role in supporting healthy movement behaviours. This population, including children with a disability, is consistently noted to attend child care and report lower rates of meeting movement behaviour recommendations. This updated review aimed to re-examine the provincial/territorial legislature in relation to physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviours (SB; screen time), and sleep, while also examining the inclusion of children with a disability therein. Methods Child care acts and regulations for each province/territory were collected and reviewed with a focus on PA, SB (screen time), play, outdoor time, sleep, and inclusion/disability. Comparisons across provinces/territories were conducted identifying frequencies and commonalities within the regulations. Results All provinces/territories provide general recommendations to afford gross motor movement; but the majority (83%) give no specific requirements for how long or at what intensity. Only 4 provinces (British Columbia, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Nova Scotia) explicitly mentioned PA, while all required daily outdoor play. British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Quebec mentioned SB, with the latter two explicitly noting no screen time. Only British Columbia referenced the 24-Hour Movement Behaviour Guidelines. Five provinces/territories mentioned children with disabilities in their legislation (but only three spoke specifically to inclusion regarding movement behaviours). Conclusion Variability in child care legislation specific to movement behaviours was observed. Providing high-level targets for movement behaviours by way of provincial/territorial legislation would give child care staff a baseline from which to begin supporting more active behaviours among all enrolled children. Moreover, there was no guidance offered for meaningful inclusion of children with disabilities. Future research is needed to support translating PA policies into improved movement behaviours among all young children in child care, including children with disabilities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".