A comparison of self-reported leisure-time physical activity and measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in adolescents and adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and results of Statistics Canada surveys have shown a discrepancy between self-reported and measured physical activity. This study compares these two methods and examines specific activities to explain the limitations of each method. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from cycle 1 (2007 to 2009) and cycle 2 (2009 to 2011) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. The survey involved an interview in the respondent's home and a visit to a mobile examination centre (MEC) for physical measurements. In a questionnaire, respondents were asked about 21 leisure-time physical activities. They were requested to wear an Actical accelerometer for seven days after the MEC visit. The analysis pertains to respondents aged 12 to 79 who wore the accelerometer for 10 or more hours on at least four days (n = 7,158). RESULTS: Averages of self-reported leisure-time physical activity and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity measured by accelerometer were within a couple of minutes of each other. However, at the individual level, the difference between estimates could exceed 37.5 minutes per day in one direction or the other, and around 40% of the population met physical activity thresholds according to one measurement method, but not according to the other. The disagreement is supported by weak observed correlations. INTERPRETATION: The lack of a systematic trend in the relationship between the two methods of measuring physical activity precludes the creation of correction factors or being confident in using one method instead of the other. Accelerometers and questionnaires measure different aspects of 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".