International Olympic Committee consensus statement on the health and fitness of young people through physical activity and sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognises the health and fi tness benefi ts of physical activity (PA) and sport as stated in recommendation #51 from the Olympic Movement in Society Congress held in Copenhagen, 2009: Everyone involved in the Olympic Movement must become more aware of the fundamental importance of Physical Activity and sport for a healthy lifestyle, not least in the growing battle against obesity, and must reach out to parents and schools as part of a strategy to counter the rising inactivity of young people.1 The IOC assembled an expert group (January 2011) to discuss the role of PA and sport on the health and fi tness of young people and to critically evaluate the scientifi c evidence as a basis for decision making. Specifi cally, the purpose of this consensus paper is to identify potential solutions through collaboration between sport and existing programmes and to review the research gaps in this fi eld. The ultimate aim of the paper is to provide recommendations for young people's sport and PA stakeholders. After an introduction to the scope of the problem, issues addressed include how best to defi ne the current state of fi tness and PA of young people; health consequences due to the lack of PA and/ or sport; correlates and determinants of PA and sedentary behaviour; options for change: studies on effectiveness of intervention; and context for action: potential solutions. Finally, a summary and recommendations are given.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".