Correlates of adults??? participation in physical activity: review and update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review and update the evidence relating to the personal, social, and environmental factors associated with physical activity (PA) in adults. METHODS: Systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature to identify papers published between 1998 and 2000 with PA (and including exercise and exercise adherence). Qualitative reports or case studies were not included. RESULTS: Thirty-eight new studies were located. Most confirmed the existence of factors already known to be correlates of PA. Changes in status were noted in relation to the influence of marital status, obesity, smoking, lack of time, past exercise behavior, and eight environmental variables. New studies were located which focused on previously understudied population groups such as minorities, middle and older aged adults, and the disabled. CONCLUSION: The newly reported studies tend to take a broader "ecological" approach to understanding the correlates of PA and are more focused on environmental factors. There remains a need to better understand environmental influences and the factors that influence different types of PA. As most of the work in this field still relies on cross-sectional studies, longitudinal and intervention studies will be required if causal relationships are to be inferred.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".