PHYSICAL ACTIVITY RECALL COMPARED TO ACCELEROMETRY MEASUREMENTS IN FEMALES AGED 19???69
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of two recall questionnaires to assesess physical activity levels when compared to objective measurements in female subjects across a wide age range. Twenty-eight female subjects (ages 19–69) completed the Aerobics Center Longitudinal Study Physical Activity Questionnaire (ALQ) and the Healthy Physical Activity Questionnaire (HPAQ) from the Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness, and Lifestyle Appraisal. Subjects then wore a CSA accelerometer (model 7164) in a small pouch positioned at the hip for seven consecutive days with a one minute epoch setting. Subjects used a log sheet to record the time they began wearing the accelerometer and anytime it was removed (ie. sleeping, swimming, showering). The data were downloaded, screened for spurious measurements, adjusted for missing data, and whole week activity counts were determined for each subject. Counts were then converted to kcals/wk (CSAkcal). Reported weekly leisure and household energy expenditure was calculated from the ALQ (Qkcal) and a Physical Activity Score was determined from the HPAQ (QS). Multiple regression was used to predict CSAkcal from Qkcal and age, and from QS and age. Qkcal was a significant predictor of CSAkcal (P < .02) while no significant age effect was observed. Correlations calculated between Qkcal and CSAkcal, by age quintile, revealed stronger relationships in younger age-groups than older age-groups. No significant relationships were found in any analyses between QS and CSAkcal. These findings suggest that the ALQ is a satisfactory instrument for assessing physical activity behaviour in adult women across a wide age range while the HPAQ does not accurately assess physical activity behaviour in adult women. Supported by NSERC and the University of New Brunswick.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".