MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of School Age Sports on Leisure Time Physical Activity in Adults: The CORDIS Study

2003· article· en· W1999789294 on OpenAlexaff
Allen Kraut, Samuel Melamed, D Gofer, Paul Froom

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCohortLogistic regressionLeisure timeConfidence intervalMedicineDemographyCohort studyOdds ratioMarital statusBody mass indexGerontologyOddsPhysical activityPhysical therapyEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Data evaluating the impact of various types of childhood physical activity on adult leisure time physical activity (LTPA) are inconsistent. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of organized childhood sporting activities on LTPA as an adult in a cohort of industrial workers. METHODS: The frequency of current LTPA, defined as a half hour or more of activity at least once per week, of 3687 industrial workers in the Cardiovascular Occupational Risk Factors in Israel Study (CORDIS) cohort was the outcome variable. We analyzed the association of organized school age sports with adult LTPA, using a multiple logistic regression model, after adjusting for sociodemographic variables including current occupational factors. RESULTS: Participating in organized school age sporting activities predicted LTPA as an adult [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.55, 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) 2.97-4.23]. This association was consistent in the various subgroups of marital status, age, smoking, shift work, body mass index, and religious observance. CONCLUSIONS: Organized school age sporting activities influenced future LTPA in this cohort. Attempts to promote these activities may lead to increased levels of LTPA in adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations119
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207