MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946547292

Sitting ducks: Exploring the role of sedentary behaviour on chronic disease prevalence in masters athletes and chess players

2018· article· en· W2946547292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shruti Patelia, Joseph Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesNormativeSittingPopulationDiseasePhysical activityMedicineGerontologyChronic diseaseSedentary lifestylePhysical therapyCompetitive athletesPsychologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sedentary activity is an important correlate of physical health. However, little is known about sedentary behaviour among older adults who are competitively involved in other types of activities (e.g., sport). This may be crucial since Masters Athletes have been proposed as ideal models of aging. Our previous work has also suggested this label could be expanded to include other forms of intense engagement; for example, both older athletes and competitive chess players report lower prevalence of chronic disease compared to the general population. Although, prior to advocating sport as an optimal activity to maintain health, it is important to understand the relation between active engagement and sedentary activity on the prevalence of chronic disease. To this end, we compared sedentary behaviour of Masters Athletes (N=69), chess players (N=44), with moderately active (N=64) and inactive (N=62) older adults from a Canadian normative dataset. Preliminary results indicated a significant correlation between type of activity and chronic disease (F=7.45, p

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Exercise, Movement, and Sport (SCAPPS refereed abstracts repository)Same topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207