The Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire: reliability and validity against doubly labeled water and seven‐day activity diaries (36.8)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We determined the measurement properties of the Sedentary Time and Activity Reporting Questionnaire (STAR‐Q) designed to estimate past‐month activity energy expenditure (AEE). STAR‐Q validity and reliability were assessed in 102 men and women in Alberta, Canada (2009‐2011), who completed 14‐day doubly‐labeled water protocols, 7‐day activity diaries beginning on Day 15 and the STAR‐Q on Day 14 and again at three and six months. Reliability of the STAR‐Q over the first three months was substantial (ICC = 0.84 and 0.73) for total energy expenditure (TEE) and AEE, respectively. STAR‐Q‐derived TEE and AEE were moderately correlated with DLW estimates (Spearman rho s =0.53 and 0.40 respectively; p<0.001). Body mass index, age, gender and season adjusted‐concordance correlation coefficients (CCC adj ) were 0.24 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.36) and 0.21 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.32) for STAR‐Q versus DLW‐derived TEE and AEE, respectively. Agreement between the diaries and STAR‐Q in MET‐hours/day was strongest for occupational sedentary time (CCC adj =0.76 (95% CI: 0.64, 0.85)) and for strenuous activity (CCC adj =0.64 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.76)). The STAR‐Q demonstrates substantial reliability and reasonable validity for ranking individuals by AEE, occupational sedentary time, and strenuous activity and can be used in epidemiologic studies investigating the health effects of overall energy expenditure and its sub‐dimension components. Grant Funding Source : Supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Alberta Cancer Research Institute
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".