Assessing the Validity of a Stage Measure on Physical Activity in a Population-Based Sample of Individuals With Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to test the validity of a transtheoretical model's physical activity (PA) stage measure with intention and different intensities of behavior in a large population-based sample of adults living with diabetes (Type 1 diabetes, n = 697; Type 2 diabetes, n = 1,614) and examine different age groups. The overall specificity (classified correctly as inactive) for Type 1 diabetes was 69.3% based on the percentage of individuals in precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation not meeting Canada's PA guidelines. Sensitivity (classified correctly as active) was 82.5% based on the proportion of active participants in action and maintenance. In the Type 2 diabetes group, the overall specificity and sensitivity was 63.9% and 88.2%, respectively. No significant differences were found between the diabetes groups for stage distribution patterns, and sensitivity and specificity values. The majority of the study hypotheses related to intention and behaviors were confirmed, providing further supportive evidence for the utility of this PA staging measure for the diabetes population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".