MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P139: Do Your Income and Occupation Affect Your Leisure Time Physical Activity? Evidence from NHANES 1999-2006

2013· article· en· W177194852 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Kakinami, Tracie A. Barnett, Lise Gauvin, Gilles Paradis

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Lifestyle Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographyNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMarital statusGerontologyEthnic groupHousehold incomePhysical activitySocioeconomic statusAffect (linguistics)Leisure timeEnvironmental healthPopulationPhysical therapyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Over ¾ of Americans fail to meet the AHA recommendations for leisure time physical activity (LTPA), with higher proportions found among lower income adults. However, this association may be moderated by activity levels that are necessary as a part of daily life, such as active transportation among those that cannot afford a vehicle, or physical labor in some lower wage-earning occupations. Data are limited to studies either not distinguishing between occupational and daily life PA, or using broad occupation job titles which may not represent the PA on an individual level. Objective: Determine the association between activity levels of daily life and LTPA. Methods: Participants were adults (20+ years) from the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Analyses were stratified by self-reported lifestyle (work, housework and school): 1) sedentary during the day (n=4233); 2) minimally active: stands or walks but does not carry or lift things often (n=11,853); 3) moderately active: carries light objects, or climbs hills often (n=4117); and 4) and very active: carries heavy objects (n=1586). Multivariable linear regression analyzed the association between annual household income (<$20K, $20K-45K, $45K-75K, $75K+ [reference]) and self-reported weekly minutes of moderate, vigorous, and total LTPA. Analyses included sampling weights to account for NHANES’ complex sampling design and adjusted for sex, age, marital status, ethnicity, weight status, whether the person actively commuted, and number of hours worked per week. Results: Lower income participants that were either very active, or sedentary during the day reported significantly less LTPA than those with comparable daily life activity levels but annual income $75K+. Conclusions: A gradient relationship between income and LTPA was seen in the two lifestyle extremes: the sedentary and very active. Public health actions aimed at increasing LTPA should be multimodal and aimed at changing both messaging and environments likely to promote LTPA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicHealth and Lifestyle StudiesFrench-language works237,207