Self-Reported Physical Activity Preferences in Individuals with Prediabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine the physical activity (PA) preferences in a sample of individuals with prediabetes. METHODS: Individuals with prediabetes (N = 232) residing in Northern Alberta, Canada completed a mailed questionnaire that assessed demographic and health variables, self-reported PA (Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire), and PA preferences. RESULTS: Respondents indicated they would like to be counseled about PA (75%), were physically able to participate (96%), were interested in a PA program for individuals with prediabetes (86%), and were most interested in walking (71%). Activity status, number of comorbidities, level of employment, marital status, body mass index, and time since diagnosis with prediabetes all demonstrated significant influence on different PA preference variables. CONCLUSIONS: There is a demand for PA-related programs for individuals with prediabetes. Incorporating identified PA preferences of those with prediabetes might aid in the development of relevant intervention tools, programs, and strategies to support PA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".