Canadian directive with regard to sedentary behavior in young infants (0-4 years)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP), with assistance from multiple partners, stakeholders, and researchers, developed the first Canadian Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for the Early Years (aged 0-4 years). These national guidelines are in response to a call from health and health care professionals, child care providers, and fitness practitioners for guidance on sedentary behaviour in the early years. The guideline development process followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation (AGREE) II framework. The recommendations are informed by evidence from a systematic review that examined the relationships between sedentary behaviour (predominantly screen time) and health indicators (healthy body weight, bone and skeletal health, motor skill development, psychosocial health, cognitive development, and cardio-metabolic disease risk factors) for three age groups (infants agedyear; toddlers aged 1-2 years; preschoolers aged 3-4 years). Evidence from the review was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The new guidelines include a preamble to provide context, followed by the specific recommendations. The final guidelines benefitted from extensive on-line consultations with input from >900 domestic and international stakeholders, end-users, and key informants. The final guidelines state: for healthy growth and development, caregivers should minimize the time infants (agedyear), toddlers (aged 1-2 years), and preschoolers (aged 3-4 years) spend being sedentary during waking hours. This includes prolonged sitting or being restrained (e. g., stroller, high chair) for more than 1 h at a time. For those under 2 years, screen time (e. g., TV, computer, electronic games) is not recommended. For children 2-4 years, screen time should be limited to under 1 h per day; less is better."
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 | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".