MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971847041 · doi:10.3109/02703181.2010.532903

Age Differences in Leisure Physical Activity by Adult Wheelchair Users

2010· article· en· W1971847041 on OpenAlexaff
Grace Warner, Mari Basiletti, Helen Hoenig

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsHillsborough HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWheelchairLeisure timeGerontologyPhysical activityPsychologySample (material)Multivariate analysisMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Despite the need for engagement in occupations to enhance physical health and well-being, individuals with mobility limitations are less likely to participate in leisure-time physical activity. Purpose: This secondary analysis evaluated the correlation of intrinsic and extrinsic contextual factors to leisure-time physical occupations in individuals with mobility limitations. Methods: The study examined a sample of 123 noninstitutionalized wheelchair recipients; the participants were primarily white (62%), male (92%), and aged (mean age = 64.8, SD = 13). Findings: Separate multivariate models were developed for younger and older wheelchair users to explore how intrinsic and extrinsic factors related to hours of leisure-time physical activity. For individuals aged 26–64, education (β = −0.42) and unpaid personal assistance (β = −0.80) were significant in the model, and for individuals ≥ 65, living alone (β = −0.27) was significant. Implications: Unpaid personal assistance has important effects on engagement in leisure-time physical occupations; however, its significance varies across age groups.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.395
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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical & Occupational Therapy In GeriatricsSame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207