Screen-based sedentary behaviours among a nationally representative sample of youth: are Canadian kids couch potatoes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the percentage of Canadian youth meeting screen-time guidelines and to identify characteristics associated with different screen-time behaviours. METHODS: Using nationally representative data collected from the 2008/2009 Youth Smoking Survey (YSS), we analyzed three screen-time behaviours, cigarette smoking, weekly spending money, self esteem, region and grade by sex, and conducted four logistic regression models to examine factors associated with more than 2 hours a day of sedentary screen time. RESULTS: Of 51 922 Canadian youth in grades 6 to 12, 50.9% spent more than 2 hours per day in screen-based behaviours. The average daily screen time was 7.8 (± 2.3) hours. Males and current smokers were more likely to report over 2 hours per day watching TV and videos or playing video games, whereas students in higher grades and those with weekly spending money were more likely to report playing or surfing on a computer. Youth with higher self-esteem were less likely to report spending over 2 hours per day in each of the three screen-time behaviours examined. CONCLUSION: Developing a better understanding of the factors associated with more hours of screen time is required to develop and target interventions that reduce screen-time behaviours.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".