Corrigendum to “Impact of new rapid transit on physical activity: A meta-analysis” Preventive Medicine Reports 10 (2018) 184–190
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors regret that there is an error in the way that the values for difference in minutes of total physical activity per week were reported (Hirsch et al., 2018).The values in Table 1 for calculated mean difference in total physical activity (min/week) (SD) should read: 41.5 for Chang; -9.7 for Hong; and -77.7 for Huang.Also, corrected row in Table 1 appears below.This error necessitates the corrections to the random effects model, producing a combined mean change of -37.2 min/week, 95% CI -91.2, 16.8.A corrected Fig. 1 appears below.Following this correction, changes should be reflected in the text: Abstract Among these five studies, after transit interventions, total physical activity decreased (combined mean -37.2 min/week, 95% CI -91.2, Table 1 Summary of characteristics of natural experiment studies examining physical activity after transit interventions (n=5).Studies systematically reviewed (May-July 2017).
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 | 0.012 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.132 | 0.027 |
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".