“How Come You Sent Me the Canadian One?” Application and Uptake of the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults With Multiple Sclerosis in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uptake and benefits of the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults with Multiple Sclerosis (PAGs) have been validated, but there is limited understanding regarding the knowledge, needs, and preferences of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) for implementing the PAGs outside of clinical research. The authors conducted online, semistructured interviews with 40 persons with MS from across the United States seeking information on awareness of and potential approaches for increasing the uptake of the PAGs. They identified first impressions and potential approaches for increasing the uptake of the PAGs through inductive, semantic thematic analysis. Participants perceived the PAGs as a good introduction for structured exercise but desired more information on how to meet the PAGs. Participants further believed that modifying the PAGs for inclusivity and applying a multifaceted approach for dissemination and implementation may increase uptake of exercise behavior. Physical activity research in MS should include both analyzing the effects of exercise and the unique challenges faced by persons with MS in putting the PAGs into practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".