Health, fitness, and life satisfaction in retired teachers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the health, fitness, and life satisfaction of retired \nteachers in Thunder Bay. Forty retired teachers (24 women, 16 men) aged 55 to 70 years \nparticipated in the study. Fitness level, physical activity participation, and lifestyle habits \nwere measured according to the protocol of The Canadian Physical Activity, Fitness, and \nLifestyle Appraisal (CPAFLA), and compared to Estimated Health Benefit Zones. Fitness \nlevel was also compared to norms from the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey (CFS). Over \n50% of the sample scored Good or higher on all fitness measures, and on measures of \nphysical activity participation and lifestyle habits, over 90% scored in this range. \nComparisons to the CFS revealed average fitness levels, not markedly different from the \ngeneral Canadian population. Levels of high density lipoproteins (HDL), low density \nlipoproteins (LDL), and triglycerides, as well as the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL were \nin a range designated as healthy or desirable for at least 50% of the sample. Self-report \nmeasures indicated a high level of satisfaction with retirement life, and extremely healthy \nlifestyle behaviours. Both perceived health and life satisfaction were significantly \ncorrelated with aerobic fitness, indicating possible benefits of maintaining a physically \nactive lifestyle during retirement. Retired teachers were found to be in good physical \nhealth, possess exceptionally healthy behaviours with respect to lifestyle and physical \nactivity participation, and be extremely satisfied with retirement life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".