Conference Support: Dose-Response Issues Concerning Physical Activity and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1985, a team of Canadian exercise scientists have volunteered a considerable amount of time to organize two international conferences that sought to understand the complex interrelationships among physical activity, fitness, and health. This special issue includes the papers, as revised, that were presented and critiqued at the symposium held October 11-15, 2000, at the Hockley Valley Resort, Ontario, Canada. Each author was invited to participate after a rigorous review identified the most prolific and up-to-date researchers on each of the 24 critical topics that had been identified for discussion by a team of international advisors. A description of the consensus process, including the role of the consensus panel, all of whom were senior international scientists outside the field of exercise science, is included in the "Introduction" by Dr. Claude Bouchard, Program Chair.
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 | 0.126 | 0.441 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.007 |
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".