DIFFERENCES IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AMONG IMMIGRANT AND NON - IMMIGRANT CHILDREN AND YOUTH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines recommend minimum 60 minutes of moderate/vigorous PA daily. Immigrant children and youth are reported to be less physically active, compared to third generation/non-immigrant children. Possible explanations for these differences are multifactorial. Objectives: 1) Examine differences in PA by immigrant generational status; 2) Examine differences in PA between immigrant and non-immigrant children and youth when adjusting for socio-economic and demographic characteristics, including neighbourhood differences, and mental health (MH). Methods: This was a cross-sectional study using Ontario Child Health Study data. A binary cut-off was determined for PA: meeting PA guidelines or not meeting PA guidelines. Descriptive statistics and basic and fully adjusted logistic regression models were conducted. Analyses were divided by age groups: 4–11-year-old and 12-17-year-old. Results: Only complete cases were included, resulting in a final sample size of 8301 participants. Among the 4–11-year-old children, the odds of meeting guidelines were 50% less for first-generation immigrant children, compared to third generation/non-immigrant children (p<0.001) and 37% less for second-generation immigrant children (p=0.001). The odds of meeting guidelines were 30% less for females compared to males (p<0.001), and for each year older, the odds were 9% less (p<0.001). Among youth, the odds of meeting guidelines were 40% less for first-generation immigrant youth compared to third generation/non-immigrant youth (p=0.01). In the fully adjusted model with PMK-reported MH measures, the odds of meeting PA guidelines were 15% higher for each increase in externalizing score (p<0.001) and 7% less for each increase in internalizing score (p=0.001). Similar findings were noted in the models with youth-reported MH measures. In both age groups, the addition of ethnicity had attenuated the OR associated with immigrant generational status and was non-significant. Conclusion: Immigrant children and youth are less likely to meet PA guidelines. Future research should assess for underlying mechanisms that may be driving the observed associations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".