An Assessment of Sedentary Time Among Undergraduate Students at an Urban Canadian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to calculate a total daily sedentary time for the undergraduate population at a large urban Canadian University and discover student perceptions on the facilitators and barriers to engaging in a less sedentary lifestyle. A sample of 335 participants responded to an online survey, with 102 participants included in the quantitative analysis and 145 included in the qualitative analysis. Participants responded to the SIT-Q Sedentary Behaviour Questionnaire and two opened ended questions. Analysis of the SIT-Q demonstrated that undergraduate student’s have daily sedentary times similar to previously studied adults with a significant amount of sedentary time allocated to study. Three themes were identified as facilitators to engaging in a less sedentary lifestyle: 1) access to a gym, 2) student jobs, and 3) walking to and on campus. Two themes were identified as barriers to engaging in a less sedentary lifestyle: 1) sitting in class and 2) studying outside of class. The results suggest that like desk-based working adults, undergraduate student’s have levels of sedentary behaviour that warrant further investigation and intervention, perhaps most effectively within the university classroom.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".