MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7139901026

UBC Student Awareness of Movement Guidelines

2022· report· en· W7139901026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ava Andersen, Hanna Hansen, Kristina Toporkova, Olivia Malesku, Shelby Kempel

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2022
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinesiologySnowball samplingLikert scaleMovement (music)Athletic trainingQualitative researchScale (ratio)Qualitative propertyData collection
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study was to bring awareness to Canada's 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18-64. A survey was conducted to determine how many undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia (UBC) Vancouver campus were aware of the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines, which pertain to daily physical activity, sleep, and sedentary behaviour. We constructed a mixed-methods survey to assess individuals' awareness of these guidelines and administered it through Qualtrics electronically via a link. The link was sent via email, text message, and posted on social media pages in order to maximize participant recruitment. The survey used convenience and snowball sampling of 87 UBC undergraduate students to collect quantitative and qualitative data. The survey consisted of open-ended and closed-ended questions, as well as a Likert scale of 1-5. Qualitative data were analyzed utilizing descriptive qualitative analysis techniques. Quantitative data were analyzed using Qualtrics and Excel. The findings indicate that the distribution of information about the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines is more easily accessed by kinesiology students than students in other faculties. Students who did not report having a background in kinesiology were much less knowledgeable of the guidelines than those who reported having such backgrounds. In addition, the majority of students view the information in the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines as important and our findings tell us that students would prefer to learn about the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines through social media. Finally, the results also highlighted certain parts of the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines that students were not aware of, such as the importance of resistance training and limiting sedentary time. Our research looks at how undergraduate students at UBC view the importance of the 24-Hour Movement guidelines. This study aimed to find effective ways to spread awareness of the guidelines so students can understand the benefits of reaching the health behaviour recommendations. The goal is for UBC undergraduate students to understand their current activity levels, sedentary time, and sleep as well as their knowledge of the effects of these behaviours on their health. We will discover if UBC undergraduate students are accomplishing these guidelines by asking the following questions: what levels of daily physical activity, sleep, and sedentary time do students engage in ? What barriers do students face that inhibit their ability to achieve the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines through campus life, and what current or potential facilitators would aid their ability to better achieve these guidelines? What platforms will be most effective and accessible for students to learn about the guidelines? We anticipate that these findings can be used to draw attention to parts of the population that require broader methods of communication with respect to the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines. The findings highlight the major differences in awareness based on educational backgrounds, which can be used to build better and more universal methods of distributing information about the 24-Hour Movement Guidelines to different populations. It is important to note that future research should investigate whether or not there may be additional barriers to communication that might contribute to the lack of information on these guidelines. Working towards spreading the information about the guidelines will help increase access and availability of these guidelines to populations that will benefit significantly from them. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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 score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.818

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→French-language works237,207→