La recherche qui éclaire les guides sur l’activité physique au Canada : introductionCet article est tiré d’un supplément intitulé <i>Advancing physical activity measurement and guidelines in Canada: a scientific review and evidence-based foundation for the future of Canadian physical activity guidelines</i> (Favoriser les lignes directrices et la mesure de l’activité physique au Canada: examen scientifique et justification selon les données probantes pour l’avenir des lignes directrices de l’activité physique canadienne) publié par <i>Physiologie appliquée, nutrition et métabolisme</i> et la <i>Revue canadienne de santé publique</i>. On peut aussi mentionner Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 32 (Suppl. 2F) ou Can. J. Public Health 98 (Suppl. 2).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP), in partnership with Health Canada and others, released Canada's first physical activity guide for adults in 1998, with specific versions for older adults in 1999 and for children and youth in 2002. Research in the physical activity sciences (e.g., basic science, behavioural assessment, dose-response relationships, epidemiology, health messaging, physical activity measurement) has advanced rapidly since these publications. A detailed review of relevant current research is thus required, to assess whether the existing guidelines and resulting guides need revision or renewal. This introductory paper provides a brief chronology of events leading to the preparation of this journal supplement, including a statement of purpose and an overview of organization and content. A brief discussion of the purpose of the physical activity guidelines and guides, intended biological, psychological, and behavioural outcomes, and the way in which guidelines relate to on-going measurement and surveillance is provided as a context for the papers that follow.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.020 |
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".