Workshop report: physical activity and cancer prevention.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A workshop to evaluate the evidence for the role of physical activity in cancer prevention and to identify priorities for action, particularly in relation to the primary prevention of cancer, was held by Cancer Care Ontario in March 2000. A review of the scientific evidence was commissioned and an expert panel convened to consider the review report and to make recommendations for public health, research and intervention. The panel concluded that evidence was convincing for the role of physical activity in preventing colon cancer; probable for breast cancer; possible for prostate cancer and insufficient for other sites. It is recommended that physical activity messages promoting at least 30 45 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity on most days of the week be included in primary prevention interventions for cancer. The panel recommended that future research on physical activity incorporate comprehensive assessments, including measures of the multiple dimensions and types of physical activity; biological mechanisms; and behavioural and population factors. Cancer Care Ontario will incorporate physical activity messages in its primary prevention programming around nutrition and health body weight.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.023 |
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".