Health-enhancing physical activity during leisure time among adults in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-reported data from the GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS study was used to calculate the level of compliance among adults in Germany with the World Health Organization's (WHO) recommendations on physical activity. The WHO's recommendations distinguish between 'aerobic activity' and 'muscle-strengthening activity'. In Germany, 42.6% of women and 48.0% of men reported that they conduct at least 2.5 hours of aerobic physical activity per week, and therefore meet the WHO's recommendation on this form of activity. A higher level of education among women and men of all ages is associated with a higher frequency of meeting the WHO's recommendations on aerobic activity. In addition, 27.6% of women and 31.2% of men conduct muscle-strengthening activity at least twice a week, thereby meeting the WHO's recommendations on this form of activity. About one fifth of women (20.5%) and one quarter of men in Germany (24.7%) meet both of these recommendations. In summary, the results point to the value of encouraging people to conduct more physical activity during their leisure time. In fact, inactive people who begin to follow the WHO's recommendations can significantly reduce their long-term risk of premature mortality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".