Canada’s physical activity guides: has their release had an impact?This article is part of a supplement entitled <i>Advancing physical activity measurement and guidelines in Canada: a scientific review and evidence-based foundation for the future of Canadian physical activity guidelines</i> co-published by <i>Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism</i> and the <i>Canadian Journal of Public Health</i>. It may be cited as Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 32(Suppl. 2E) or as Can. J. Public Health 98(Suppl. 2).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine the reach of different versions of Canada’s physical activity guide (CPAG) and their impacts, including immediate effects (awareness, knowledge, beliefs, future intention to be active, first steps towards behavioural change) and population levels of physical activity. The analysis is based on eligible adults aged 18 years and older (n = 8,892) included in the 2003 Physical Activity Monitor (PAM) survey. The 2003 PAM was a cross-sectional, telephone interview of a representative population sample. Secular trends of Canadians aged 12 years and older were examined, using representative samples from the National Population Health and Canadian Community Health Surveys. Unprompted recall of any guidelines for physical activity was very low (4%), whereas prompted recall of the CPAG was higher (37%). Unprompted and prompted recall were higher among women and high-income earners, and increased with level of education. Behaviours associated with “seeking information” and “initiating action” were associated with unprompted and prompted recall. Beliefs about the benefits of physical activity and intention to be active were also associated with prompted recall. Unprompted CPAG recall, knowledge about the amount of activity required to meet the CPAG, intention to be active, “seeking information”, and “initiating action” were associated with being “sufficiently active”. The CPAG is an appropriate set of public health guidelines or recommendations around physical activity. The low unprompted recall rate points to the need for a coordinated, well-funded approach to communication of these guidelines, involving governmental and non-governmental partners and intermediaries in municipalities, schools, workplaces, and the recreational, public health, and health-care systems.
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 | 0.022 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".