Croatian 24-hour guidelines for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep: A proposal based on a systematic review of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A modern approach to shaping public health guidelines is to integrate recommendations for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep and to recommend the optimal distribution of time spent in these behaviours in a 24-hour day. The aim of this paper was to conduct a systematic review of literature to identify and analyse the available 24-hour guidelines for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep, and to propose Croatian 24-hour guidelines in line with the existing findings. The systematic review of literature showed 24-hour guidelines from the World Health Organization (WHO) and national 24-hour guidelines for children and youth (0 – 17 years of age) in four countries (Australia, South Africa, Canada, and New Zealand). No such guidelines were found for adults and seniors. All the available 24-hour guidelines for children and youth are very similar, as they are based on the Canadian national guidelines. The quantitative recommendations are all the same, with differences found only in specific examples and descriptions of activities. Given that the foregoing guidelines were formulated in line with the best available scientific evidence, they were used to inform the development of the proposed Croatian 24-hour guidelines for children and youth. The proposed guidelines were tailored to the specific context in Croatia. Since no integrated 24-hour guidelines for physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and sleep for adults and seniors were found in the systematic review of literature, an additional thorough review of literature was conducted in order to identify the most relevant guidelines for each individual behaviour. The proposed Croatian 24-hour guidelines for adults and seniors were based on the WHO guidelines and the most recent and relevant national recommendations from other countries for each of the behaviours. The proposed Croatian 24-hour guidelines can be used: (1) to provide individual counselling in general practice clinics, medical clinics, and recreation centres; (2) to help formulate messages in public health campaigns; and (3) to develop national, local, and institutional health policies.
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 | 0.156 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".