MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126123239 · doi:10.1002/hec.3106

The Effect of Leisure‐Time Physical Activity on Obesity, Diabetes, High BP and Heart Disease Among Canadians: Evidence from 2000/2001 to 2005/2006

2014· article· en· W2126123239 on OpenAlexafffund
Sisira Sarma, Rose Anne Devlin, Jason Gilliland, M. Karen Campbell, Gregory S. Zaric

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Economics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsObesityBivariate analysisInstrumental variableMultivariate probit modelMedicinePhysical activityDiabetes mellitusGerontologyProbit modelDemographyPhysical therapyInternal medicineEconometricsStatisticsMathematicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although studies have looked at the effect of physical activity on obesity and other health outcomes, the causal nature of this relationship remains unclear. We fill this gap by investigating the impact of leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and work-related physical activity (WRPA) on obesity and chronic conditions in Canadians aged 18-75 using instrumental variable and recursive bivariate probit approaches. Average local temperatures surrounding the respondents' interview month are used as a novel instrument to help identify the causal relationship between LTPA and health outcomes. We find that an active level of LTPA (i.e., walking ≥1 h/day) reduces the probability of obesity by five percentage points, which increases to 11 percentage points if also combined with some WRPA. WRPA exhibits a negative effect on the probability of obesity and chronic conditions.

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)0.006
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations47
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth EconomicsSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207