The Prevalence of Physical Activity Maintenance in a Sample of University Students: A Longitudinal Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The health and financial costs of physical inactivity are staggering. Few researchers have assessed the prevalence of physical activity at the level needed to gain health benefits. OBJECTIVE: The author's purpose in this longitudinal study was to assess the prevalence of university students who maintained physical activity at the level necessary for health gains for at least 1 month. PARTICIPANTS: University students (N = 392) from 2 campuses participated in this 1-month study. METHODS: The author administered a survey to the same group of students at baseline and 1 month later to assess the prevalence of students who met and maintained the physical activity guideline for health (PAGH). RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of students maintained the PAGH for 1 month. CONCLUSION: The majority of students in this study were insufficiently physically active. Given that insufficient physical activity may lead to serious health concerns, interventions are needed to improve activity maintenance in this population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".