Are the fittest Canadian adults the healthiest?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (cycles 1 and 2) were analyzed to determine if higher fitness categories are associated with better health. Respondents' fitness was assessed in terms of cardiorespiratory fitness, grip strength, sit-and-reach and partial curl-ups, and also according to two composite measures (back fitness and musculoskeletal fitness). Fitness scores could range from "Needs improvement" to "Excellent." Pairwise t-tests were used to compare health outcomes across fitness categories. The health outcomes were waist circumference, blood pressure, glycated hemoglobin, ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein, lung function, self-rated health, life satisfaction, and number of chronic conditions. All health outcomes except systolic blood pressure were significantly better among respondents whose cardiorespiratory fitness was "Excellent," compared with "Needs improvement." For grip strength and partial curl-ups, only glycated hemoglobin and self-rated health were better among respondents in the "Excellent" category, compared with "Needs improvement." Lung function was worse in those with better grip strength. No significant associations with health outcomes emerged for sit-and-reach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".