Body image, eating attitudes and behaviours, and physical activity: A multi-method study of school age children in child care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A multi-method qualitative study of a child care facility was conducted to examine (1) body image, (2) eating attitudes and behaviours, and (3) physical activity among Canadian school age children. The purpose was to recognize and understand the behaviours and social interactions of children related to these concepts at a before- and after-school child care program for children in Grades K-6. How these behaviours and interactions influenced and could be influenced by child care practice was also studied. Observations of six- to 12-year-old children were made over a four-month period to examine interrelationships among the three concepts. These observations were in conjunction with selected interviews with children, informal conversations with child care staff, and with child learning activities conducted by the researcher. Guided by ecological systems theory, the data were examined using content analysis and general inductive analysis. Four main themes emerged from the data: (1) “How to be a better, healthier person,” (2) “Out of their hands,” (3) “Puppets cutting their strings,” and (4) “Reaching out.” Findings showed that children were knowledgeable about ideas and behaviours that influenced health, which was due in part to formal and informal teaching about health at the Centre. The children also exhibited, or were learning to exhibit, healthy behaviours, which were congruent with the child care program’s philosophy, goals, and children’s rights and responsibilities. These healthy behaviours included a positive sense of self, healthy eating habits and food choices, and regular physical activity. Some children’s behaviours also reflected the influences of sociocultural forces, specifically related to physical appearance and activity. This research showed that early learning and child care practice can shape children’s ideas and behaviour about body image, eating and activity. Implications for the establishment and delivery of child care programs, as well as the training and regulation of professional child care staff, are discussed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".