MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2414615533 · doi:10.1515/ijamh.2005.17.1.49

Physical inactivity in Canadian adolescents and their associations with chronic disease and social economics

2005· article· en· W2414615533 on OpenAlexaffabout
Frank Mo, Fan D Mo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusDemographyOdds ratioConfidence intervalOddsPopulationGerontologyPhysical activityMedicinePsychologyLogistic regressionPhysical therapySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Physical activity is an important determinant of population health. In this paper, we examine levels of physical activity among Canadian adolescents in relation to socioeconomic status. METHODS: Data from the Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.1, conducted in 2003, were used to evaluate the association between socioeconomic status and physical activity. This survey included 9,294 males between 12 and 20 years of age, and 9,147 females in the same age range. RESULTS: Among adolescents aged 12 to 20 years, 55.9% of males and 39.2% of females were physically active. The proportion of subjects in the active category tended to decrease with age in both males and females. Adolescents from low income families were more physically inactive (odds ratio=1.30, 95% confidence interval=1.29-1.32) than those from high income families. CONCLUSION: Physical inactivity in adolescence represents an important population health issue in Canada. Physical activity levels tended to be higher among males, younger people, and those with higher socioeconomic status. Multi-sectoral policies and initiatives are needed to create environments that promote physical activity among Canadian youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adolescent Medicine and HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207