Active travel and adults' health: The 2007-to-2011 Canadian Health Measures Surveys.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Active travel may be a means of integrating physical activity into an individual's routine. This analysis investigates the relationship between utilitarian walking and cycling and objectively measured physical activity and health-related outcomes in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults. DATA AND METHODS: Adults aged 20 to 79 who participated in the 2007-to-2011 Canadian Health Measures Surveys (N = 7,160) reported the weekly time spent in utilitarian walking and cycling and wore an Actical accelerometer for seven days. They underwent a series of tests to measure physical fitness, body composition, blood pressure, and biomarkers. Differences in physical activity and health-related outcomes across levels of utilitarian walking and cycling were assessed with ANCOVA analyses adjusted for age, sex, education, household income, self-reported usual daily physical activity, and the complex survey design. RESULTS: Utilitarian walking and cycling were associated with moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in a graded manner. Compared with respondents who reported walking 1 to 5 hours a week, those who walked more than 5 hours a week had lower skinfold thickness. Respondents who reported cycling 1 or more hours a week had greater aerobic fitness and lower BMI, waist circumference, total cholesterol/HDL ratio, glycohemoglobin, C-reactive protein, and triglycerides than did those who did not cycle. They also had higher aerobic fitness and lower BMI and waist circumference than those who reported cycling less than an hour a week. INTERPRETATION: Cycling at least an hour a week is associated with improved fitness and reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors. Both utilitarian walking and cycling may be means of increasing adults' moderate-to-vigorous 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".