Are Canadians meeting the guidelines for moderate and vigorous leisure-time physical activity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of Canadian adults (aged 18-55 years) who met the guidelines for moderate and vigorous physical activity set out in Canada's Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living. Leisure-time physical activity energy expenditure from moderate- and vigorous-intensity activities was calculated using data from the National Population Health Surveys (1994-1998) and the Canadian Community Health Surveys (2001-2007). The prevalence was estimated for no leisure-time physical activity, meeting only the moderate guideline, meeting both the moderate and vigorous guidelines, and meeting the guidelines through a combination of moderate and vigorous activities. Logistic regression was used to determine the odds of meeting the guidelines by various demographic characteristics. The prevalence of no activity did not change appreciably over time, ranging from 6.5% to 10%, depending on the survey year. Reporting of no activity was more prevalent among older adults, those in lower income groups, and those with a body mass index (BMI) > or =30 kg.m-2. Overall, 65% of adults met the guidelines for physical activity in 2007, which has increased from 54% in 1994-1995. Men, younger adults, those with a higher income, and those with a lower BMI more often met the guidelines. Among all subgroups, meeting the guidelines was most often accomplished through participation in moderate-intensity activities. These findings should be considered when designing and implementing public health interventions that promote participation in daily physical activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".