MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164013208 · doi:10.1139/h11-009

New Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines

2011· review· en· W2164013208 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mark S. Tremblay, Darren E. R. Warburton, Ian Janssen, Donald H. Paterson, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Ryan E. Rhodes, Michelle E. Kho, Audrey L. Hicks, Allana G. LeBlanc, Lori Zehr, Kelly Murumets, Mary Duggan

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioUniversity of VictoriaQueen's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsGuidelineContext (archaeology)Agency (philosophy)Systematic reviewBest practiceMedical educationMedicinePsychologyMEDLINEFamily medicinePolitical scienceGeographySociologySocial sciencePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP), in cooperation with ParticipACTION and other stakeholders, and with support from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), has developed the new Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for Children (aged 5-11 years), Youth (aged 12-17 years), Adults (aged 18-64 years), and Older Adults (aged >=65 years). The new guidelines include a preamble to provide context and specific guidelines for each age group. The entire guideline development process was guided by the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument, which is the international standard for clinical practice guideline development. Thus, the guidelines have gone through a rigorous and transparent developmental process; we based the recommendations herein on evidence from 3 systematic reviews, and the final guidelines benefitted from an extensive online and in-person consultation process with hundreds of stakeholders and key informants, both domestic and international. Since 2006, the products of our efforts resulted in the completion of 21 peer-reviewed journal articles (including 5 systematic reviews) that collectively guided this work. The process that Canadian researchers undertook to update the national physical activity guidelines represents the most current synthesis, interpretation, and application of the scientific evidence to date.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0190.023
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.007

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1,246
Published2011
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207