Awareness of Canada's Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living in a Large Community Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determine the proportion of adults aware of Canada's Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living (Guide) and its specific recommendations (objective 1); whether key demographic factors (objective 2a) and physical activity behavior (objective 2b) are associated with awareness and specific familiarity with the Guide; and if changes in awareness and specific recommendations with the Guide occurred over a 1-year period (objective 3a and 3b). DESIGN: Random selection with computer-assisted telephone interviewing. SETTING: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. SUBJECTS: A total of 2803 adults 18 years or older completed interviews from 4831 telephone contacts (response rate, 58.0%), and after 1 year, 1423 individuals (55%) completed interviews. MEASURES: Demographic, physical activity, Guide awareness. ANALYSIS: Chi-square, analysis of variance. RESULTS: At baseline, 27.3% were aware of the Guide, and 15.6% were familiar with the Guide's specific recommendations. Younger individuals (p=.01), women (p<.001), and those with a higher education (p<.001) were more likely to be generally aware of the Guide, and women were also more specifically aware (p=.01). Physical activity levels were positively associated with the general (p<.001) and specific (p<.001) awareness of the Guide. Changes in general familiarity and specific recommendations over 1 year were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of those surveyed were not familiar with the Guide. Men, individuals with a lower education, and older individuals may need to be specifically targeted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".