MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise Time: Gender Differences in the Effects of Marriage, Parenthood, and Employment

2004· article· en· W2066783450 on OpenAlexaff
Kei Nomaguchi, Suzanne M. Bianchi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marriage and the Family · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpouseNational Survey of Family GrowthPaid workPerspective (graphical)PsychologyTime perspectiveGerontologyWork hoursDemographyAssociation (psychology)Time-use surveyWork (physics)MedicineWorking hoursSocial psychologyPopulationSociologyFamily planningLabour economicsResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from a supplement to the 1995 National Health Interview Survey, this article examines the relationship among three major work and family roles—marriage, parenthood, and employment—and time spent on exercise among American men and women ages 18 to 64 (N = 13,496). As the time availability perspective suggests, work and family roles curtail time for exercise. Married adults spend less time on exercising than unmarried adults. Although the number of children is not related to time spent on exercising, having children under age 5 is negatively associated with exercising. Long hours of employment are also related to less time spent on exercising, although the effect is small. Across the board, women spend less time on exercising than men, but the negative association of work and family roles, especially the role of spouse, with time for exercise is greater for men than for women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations323
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Marriage and the FamilySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207