MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131293625 · doi:10.1080/02640410410001712421

Physical activity and older adults: a review of health benefits and the effectiveness of interventions

2004· review· en· W2131293625 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionGerontologyFlexibility (engineering)Multidisciplinary approachPsychologyQuality of life (healthcare)Physical activityMedicinePhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this multidisciplinary review paper is to critically review evidence from descriptive, efficacy and effectiveness studies concerned with physical activity and older people. Both levels of fitness (aerobic power, strength, flexibility and functional capability) and measures of physical activity involvement decline with age, and the extent to which this is due to a biological ageing processes or disuse (physical inactivity) is critically examined. The review will consider the evidence for a causal relationship between sedentary behaviour/physical activity programmes and cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and psycho-social health, independent living and health-related quality of life into old age. The review also considers the effectiveness of different physical activity interventions for older people and issues relating to cost-effectiveness. The implications for future policy in terms of research, health care services, and education and training are briefly discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.355 · 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