MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134242498 · doi:10.1177/1757913913480751

The influence of ethnicity and gender on the association between measured obesity and cardiorespiratory fitness with self-rated overweight, physical activity and health

2013· article· en· W2134242498 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer L. Kuk, Chris I. Ardern

Bibliographic record

VenuePerspectives in Public Health · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessOverweightEthnic groupObesityPhysical activityAssociation (psychology)MedicinePhysical fitnessGerontologyPsychologyPhysical therapySociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how ethnicity may influence how self-rated physical activity (PA) and obesity relates to measured obesity, cardiorespiratory fitness and self-rated health. AIMS: To examine the influence of ethnicity on the association between: (1) self-rated and measured obesity; (2) self-reported PA and cardiorespiratory fitness; and (3) obesity and PA with self-rated health. METHODS: Data from NHANES 1999-2004 (2,981 adults) was used. RESULTS: Compared to white and overweight black men, Hispanic men were less likely to consider themselves overweight (OR = 0.36-0.56). Compared to white men, black active men were more likely to report being more active than their peers (OR = 1.44) but were less likely to be fit (OR = 0.74). Black active women and non-white overweight women were less likely to self-rate as having very good or excellent health as compared to white women with similar self-reported and measured health factors. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity and gender influence how self-rated and measured health factors interrelate.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerspectives in Public HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207