MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7014629953

The Prevalence of Ontario Undergraduate University Students Meeting the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines and the Role of Perceived Social Support

2023· article· en· W7014629953 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPandemicIntervention (counseling)Social supportCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Set (abstract data type)Movement (music)Sleep (system call)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensive physical and mental health implications of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep are irrefutable. The COVID-19 pandemic has had drastic consequences on university students and their already poor movement behaviours. Recommendations for a healthful distribution of physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep were presented in the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults. The current research sought to report the prevalence of Ontario undergraduate university students meeting the Guidelines approximately two and a half years into the pandemic and assess the association between meeting the Guidelines and perceived social support. A total of 508 undergraduate students registered at 19 universities across Ontario completed the online survey. Only one participant (0.2%) met all recommendations set out in the Guidelines. Biserial correlation revealed a small significant correlation between meeting the sedentary time component of the Guidelines and social support. Meaningful intervention is needed to improve the movement behaviours of university students.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→