The Association Between Social Cohesion and Physical Activity in Communities Across Canada: A Multilevel Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Canada, only 15% of adults meet physical activity guidelines for optimal health. Previous research has suggested that social cohesion may promote physical activity.\nObjective: To assess the association between social cohesion and physical activity among adults aged 18 to 64 years in Canada.\nMethods: Data from the 2009-2010, 2011-2012, and 2013-2014 cycles (N=245,150) of the Canadian Community Health Survey were used. Physical activity level was operationalized using average daily energy expenditure, social cohesion was determined by self-rated sense of belonging to the local community, and communities were represented by Canada’s Forward Sortation Areas. Multilevel regression models were used to assess the association between social cohesion and physical activity.\nResults: Both individual- and community-level social cohesion were positively associated with physical activity. Weight status modified the association between community-level social cohesion and physical activity.\nConclusion: Social cohesion may contribute to promoting physical activity among adults in Canada.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".