GrOup based physical Activity for oLder adults (GOAL) randomized controlled trial: study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical activity has health benefits across the lifespan, yet only 13 % of Canadian older adults are sufficiently active. Results from a number of observational studies indicate that adults display positive preferences for exercising with others of a similar age and same gender, and that intra-group age- and gender-similarity are associated with elevated exercise adherence. However, research has yet to experimentally examine the extent to which intra-group age- and gender-related similarity affect exercise adherence behaviors. METHODS/DESIGN: The GrOup-based physical Activity for oLder adults (GOAL) trial is a three-arm randomized control trial that will examine the efficacy of two different group-based exercise programs for older adults (informed by the tenets of self-categorization theory) in relation to a standard group-based exercise program. Within this manuscript we outline the design and proposed evaluation of the GOAL trial. The first arm is comprised of exercise groups made up of participants of a similar-age and of the same gender; the second arm consists of groups with similar-aged mixed gender participants; the control arm is comprised of mixed-aged mixed gender participants. We aim to compare the adherence rates of participants across conditions, as well as potential moderation effects and mediating mechanisms. DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will inform intervention designs to improve the exercise adherence behaviors of older adult. At a systems-level, should support be derived for the efficacy of the interventions tested in this trial, changing group composition (i.e., age, gender) represents a feasible program adaptation for physical activity centers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT02023632 . Registered December 13, 2013.
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 | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.017 |
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".