MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137675321 · doi:10.1139/h02-024

Physical Activity, Aerobic Fitness, and Seven-Year Changes in Adiposity in the Canadian Population

2002· article· en· W2137675321 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle D. Fortier, Peter T. Katzmarzyk, Claude Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerobic exerciseWaistPhysical activityPhysical fitnessDemographyPopulationMedicineBody mass indexEnergy expenditureGerontologyPhysical therapyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Associations among baseline physical activity, aerobic fitness, changes in physical activity, and 7-y changes in adiposity were determined. The sample consisted of 602 males and 644 females, aged 20-69 y, from the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey and the 1988 Campbell's Survey. Questionnaire-derived measures of physical activity level consisted of activity energy expenditure (AEE) and time spent on physical activity. Participants were grouped into physical activity level categories by AEE and physical activity intensity (based on MET values), and physical activity level changes were determined from movement between tertiles of AEE from baseline to follow-up. Aerobic fitness levels at baseline were determined using the Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test. Changes in body mass, the sum of five skinfolds (SF5), and waist circumference (WC) were used as indicators of adiposity change. ANCOVA and multiple regression analyses indicated that neither baseline physical activity levels, intensity, physical activity change categories, nor aerobic fitness levels were significant predictors of changes in adiposity. In conclusion, physical activity was not predictive of 7-y changes in indicators of adiposity in this sample.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207