MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1132305487

Fitness of Canadian adults: results from the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey.

2010· article· en· W1132305487 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margot Shields, Mark S. Tremblay, Manon Laviolette, Cora L. Craig, Ian Janssen, Sarah Connor Gorber

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaistPhysical fitnessAnthropometryDemographyBody mass indexMedicinePhysical strengthCircumferenceAerobic exerciseFlexibility (engineering)Physical therapyGerontologyObesityStatisticsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Estimates of obesity, based on body mass index (BMI) reveal that Canadian adults have become heavier over the past quarter century. However, a comprehensive assessment of fitness requires additional measures. This article provides up-to-date estimates of fitness levels of Canadians aged 20 to 69 years. Results are compared with estimates from 1981. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS). Historical estimates are from the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey. Means, medians and cross-tabulations were used to compare fitness levels by sex and age group and between survey years. RESULTS: Mean scores for aerobic fitness, flexibility, muscular endurance and muscular strength declined at older ages, and BMI, waist circumference, skinfold measurements and waist-to-hip ratio increased. Males had higher scores than females for aerobic fitness, muscular endurance and muscular strength; females had higher scores for flexibility. Muscular strength and flexibility decreased between 1981 and 2007-2009; BMI, waist circumference and skinfold measurements increased. INTERPRETATION: Based on results of the fitness tests and anthropometric measurements, many Canadian adults face health risks due to suboptimal fitness levels.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations181
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207