The 2017 Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire for Everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic Physical Activity Readiness Medical Examination (ePARmed-X+)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article contains the current CONSENSUS PANEL APPROVED AND OFFICIAL version of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire for Everyone (PAR-Q+). The new PAR-Q+ and ePARmed-X+ were introduced officially at the 3rd International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (May 5-8, 2010) by Drs. Darren Warburton, Norman Gledhill, Veronica Jamnik, and Shannon Bredin. The first peer reviewed article containing the PAR-Q+ was published in the Health & Fitness Journal of Canada and subsequent updates have been made through this journal. Owing to the evidence-based nature of the PAR-Q+ and ePARmed-X+ both forms require routine update as the evidence expands. These ongoing revisions are made by the PAR-Q+ Collaboration and evaluated by an international consensus committee. This article contains the 2017 PAR-Q+ that includes significant changes from our original version. This version replaces all previous versions. This is the current evidence-based and consensus panel approved version of the PAR-Q+.
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 | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".