Awareness of National Physical Activity Recommendations for Health Promotion among US Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine whether knowledge of the 1995 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) national physical activity recommendations varies by sociodemographic, behavioral, and communication-related factors. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of 2381 participants in the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey, a national probability sample of the US population contacted via random-digit dial. RESULTS: Only a third of respondents were accurately knowledgeable of the CDC/ACSM physical activity recommendations. Recommendation knowledge was higher among women (OR = 1.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.35-2.14) than men, the employed compared with those not currently working (OR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.55-0.95), foreign-born individuals (OR = 1.62; 95% CI = 1.15-2.30) compared with the US-born, and those meeting CDC/ACSM recommendations vs those who do not (OR = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.58-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: There is not widespread knowledge of the consensus national physical activity recommendations. These findings highlight the need for more effective campaigns to promote physical activity among the American public.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".