Progress and Pitfalls in the Use of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) for Adult Physical Activity Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Before the development of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), population measures of physical activity were country-specific, noncomparable, and mostly developed to assess leisure-time activity. Given the global increases in noncommunicable disease1 the need for internationally comparable physical activity surveillance measures was identified. An initial meeting at World Health Organization Headquarters in 1998 convened a group of physical activity scientists to plan the development and testing of such a measure, resulting in IPAQ. The purpose of this commentary is to reflect upon the first decade of experience with IPAQ, compare its intended to its actual use, and comment on its strengths and weaknesses as an addition to the armamentarium of self-report physical activity measures. IPAQ development was premised on the need to develop international population measurement to assess ‘total physical activity’ across the domains of work, domestic tasks, active transport, and leisure time, because patterns of activity across domains were expected to vary widely by country.2 IPAQ was developed because of the desire for cross-country comparison and international physical activity surveillance. To enhance use across countries, the measures were
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".