The 2017 Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire for Everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic Physical Activity Readiness Medical Examination (ePARmed-X+)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it