Comparison of Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire results with accelerometer data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Discrepancies between self-reported and objectively measured physical activity are well-known. For the purpose of validation, this study compares a new self-reported physical activity questionnaire with an existing one and with accelerometer data. DATA AND METHODS: Data collected at one site of the Canadian Health Measures Survey in 2013 were used for this validation study. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) was administered to respondents during the household interview, and the new Physical Activity for Adults Questionnaire (PAAQ) was administered during a subsequent visit to a mobile examination centre (MEC). At the MEC, respondents were given an accelerometer to wear for seven days. The analysis pertains to 112 respondents aged 18 to 79 who wore the accelerometer for 10 or more hours on at least four days. RESULTS: Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) measured by accelerometer had higher correlation with data from the PAAQ (r = 0.44) than with data from the IPAQ (r = 0.20). The differences between accelerometer and PAAQ data were greater based on accelerometer-measured physical activity accumulated in 10-minute bouts (30-minute difference in MVPA) than on all minutes (9-minute difference). The percentages of respondents meeting the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines were 90% based on self-reported IPAQ minutes, 70% based on all accelerometer MVPA minutes, 29% based on accelerometer MVPA minutes accumulated in 10-minute bouts, and 61% based on self-reported PAAQ minutes. INTERPRETATION: The PAAQ demonstrated reasonable validity against the accelerometer criterion. Based on correlations and absolute differences between daily minutes of MVPA and the percentages of respondents meeting the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines, PAAQ results were closer to accelerometer data than were the IPAQ results for the study sample and previous Statistics Canada self-reported questionnaire findings.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".