HEALTH BELIEFS, PRACTICES, AND STATUS OF MODERATE AND VIGOROUS LEISURE-TIME EXERCISERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about distinguishing characteristics of moderate (M), vigorous (V), and combined (M+V) exercisers. Two indicators were developed to identify these differences, the Health Practice Ratío (HPR), derived from 17 health-related questions, and Medical Health Status (MHS), based on presence of chronic conditions and activity restriction. Members of a wellness institute (WI) (N = 2022), and an age and sex matched community sample (CS) (N = 1897) were divided into the above three groups. Moderate exercisers met the Surgeon General's recommendation of > 150 min/wk moderate activity (x = 433 ± 432 min/wk). Vigorous exercisers met the ACSM recommendation of > 60 min/wk vigorous activity (x = 276 ± 235 min/wk). Members of both groups participated minimally (x = < 10% of recommendation) in exercise of the other type. Members of the third group (M+V) met both guidelines. The remaining individuals were excluded from the analyses (50% WI, 58% CS).TableM were older than V or M+V (P < 0.001), and less likely to believe they exercise enough for health (X2, P < 0.001). Controlling for age and morbidity, HPR differed significantly between exercise groups (p = 0.004), and sample (WI or CS) (p = 0.005). A significant intraction (group × sample) was found for MHS, controlling for age (p = 0.054). Moderate and M+V exercisers at the WI had the most positive health practices, and poorer medical status than the CS. Vigorous exercisers in both samples had similar MHS, and the lowes HPR scores. Data from Wellness Institute Services Evaluation Research Program (WISER).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".