Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Information about physical activity (PA) in Greenland is limited, partly because of a lack of validated instruments in countries with non-Western living conditions. We modified the long form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ-L) to arctic living conditions. The aim of the study was to compare IPAQ-L estimates with combined accelerometry and heart rate monitoring (ACC + HR) in a population-based study of adult Inuit in Greenland. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected by face-to-face interview and ACC + HR monitoring among Inuit (18 yr and above) in Greenland during 2005-2010 (n = 1508). PA energy expenditure (PAEE) and time spent sedentary and on PA at moderate and vigorous intensity were derived from IPAQ-L and ACC + HR. Estimates were compared using Bland-Altman agreement analysis and Spearman correlations stratified by sex, place of residence (capital, towns, and villages), and age groups. RESULTS: Questionnaire-based PAEE was moderately correlated with objectively measured PAEE (r = 0.20-0.35, P < 0.01). Self-reported time spent at moderate- and vigorous-intensity PA and time spent sedentary were weakly correlated with the objective measure (r = 0.11-0.31). Agreement analyses showed relatively small median differences for all measures of PA; however, time spent at moderate-intensity PA was substantially overreported by IPAQ-L when including walking (>1.5 h·d, P < 0.001) but not when excluding walking. CONCLUSIONS: The IPAQ-L adapted to arctic living conditions in Greenland had a moderate level of agreement with combined accelerometry and heart rate monitoring for total PAEE at population level, but it was less valid to measure different intensities of PA and sedentary activity. Validity did not differ markedly between rural and urban communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".