MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2154475325 · doi:10.1136/bjsm.2010.081570.19

Exercise is medicine: but what is the dose?

2011· article· en· W2154475325 on OpenAlexaff
Karim M. Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolypillPillMedicinePresentation (obstetrics)Alternative medicineReading (process)PopulationFamily medicinePhysical therapyTraditional medicineGerontologyPharmacologySurgeryEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lecture 19 The term ‘polypill’ was coined in a BMJ publication; researchers wondered whether a cocktail of five pills taken on a population basis could reduce cardiovascular disease by 80% (Wald 2003). Some would argue that there exists a polypill already – but the multi-system benefits of physical activity have been under-recognised. In this short presentation, I address the question ‘What is the optimum dose of physical activity for health?’ Recommended reading below.1 2

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→