Exercise Modality Choices One Year After Intervention in Previously Inactive Older Men and Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A convenience sample of 176 healthy, community-dwelling, inactive older adults (mean age 70 ± 5 years; 62 males, 114 females) were tracked for one year. The purpose was to describe the exercise modality choices older adults make one year following participation in an exercise and education intervention. Telephone follow-up contacted 137 participants (78%, men = 50, women = 87) and 62% of the men and 69% of the women reported to be "currently exercising." Exercising independently was the most common type of exercise reported by 81% and 64% of men and women, respectively. Walking was the most commonly reported modality by both genders. The setting of exercise was most often reported to be at home or outside for both men and women. The main reason for continued participation at 12 months was for overall health (50% of men and 40% of women). Little variation was observed for exercise modality choice. Future interventions should consider a variety of exercise and physical activity opportunities for older adults.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".