Are objective indicators of sedentary behaviour associated with subjective wellbeing in adults aged 75 and over
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults, the fastest growing segment of the population, spend the majority of waking hours in sedentary activities, potentially declining wellbeing. While physical activity (PA) has been shown to positively influence subjective wellbeing (SWB), little is known about the association between sedentary behaviour (SB) and SWB, particularly in older adults. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between SB and SWB in older adults, while controlling for PA. Twenty-nine older individuals (Mage=81) with a range of PA levels (n=15 athletes,n=14 non-athletes) participated in the study. Demographic data (age,sex,marital status,education) and SWB variables (optimism,positive affect,life satisfaction) were collected by self-report questionnaire. The total number of sedentary bouts/breaks per week and daily average time spent in sedentary bouts/breaks and PA were measured by 7-day accelerometry. Partial correlations were conducted to investigate associations between SB and wellbeing, while controlling for PA, group (athlete,non-athlete), and associated demographics. The total number of sedentary bouts/week was moderately associated with optimism (r=-.48) and life satisfaction (r=-.37), and weakly related to positive affect (r=-.17). The daily average time spent in breaks from SB was moderately associated with optimism (r=.36), and weakly linked with positive affect (r=.16). The daily average time spent in bouts of SB was weakly linked to life satisfaction (r=-.17). This study provides preliminary evidence of the relationship between SB and wellbeing, beyond that of PA, among older adults. This new area of research could ultimately inform the development of effective interventions to reduce SB and improve wellbeing in 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".