MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109499331 · doi:10.1123/japa.16.3.261

Getting Tougher for the Fourth Quarter: Boomers and Physical Activity

2008· article· en· W2109499331 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James H. Swan, Robert H. Friis, Keith Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Physical Activity · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaby boomersQuarter (Canadian coin)DemographyGerontologyLogistic regressionNational Health Interview SurveyPsychologyPhysical activityPsychological interventionMedicineDemographic economicsGeographyPopulationEconomicsSociologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Baby Boomers might not consider themselves as growing old but are starting to reach the last quarter of average life spans. This article asks how Boomers prepare for their fourth quarters through physical activity. Three years (1999-2001) of National Health Interview Survey data yielded 96,501 adult respondents. Dependent variables were moderate, vigorous, and strengthening activity. Old boomers (1946-1955) and young boomers (1956-1965) were compared to respondents born before 1926, after 1975, and 10-year cohorts between. SUDAAN multiple logistic regression adjusted for complex sampling structure and multiply imputed income. Age-adjusted, older cohorts showed greater likelihood of activity than younger cohorts, offsetting moderate-activity declines with age until sharp decreases at advanced age: a plateau across Boomer and younger-aged cohorts. Interventions should promote activity at intensities and frequencies to which Boomers are most receptive.

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)0.002
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and Physical ActivitySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207