20. Physical Activity in Shift Workers versus Non-Shift Workers using Accelerometer in Female Hospital Employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to a recent Statistics Canada report on physical activity (PA) of Canadian Adults in 2007 to 2011, only 20% of adults (ages 18-79) are meeting the PA guideline. Although the reasons for physical inactivity are multifactorial it is likely that less leisure time due to an increase in work responsibilities may limit PA. Individuals who engage in shiftwork may have reduced opportunities to participate in leisure time PA due to fatigue associated with their irregular work schedule. Shiftwork has been associated with increased chronic disease risk, including cardiovascular, metabolic diseases and cancer. Changes in PA may be a biological mechanism by which shiftwork affects chronic disease development. As the prevalence of shiftwork continues to increase, it is important to understand the relationship between shiftwork and PA. A major limitation of studies that assess PA among shift workers is that it is often measured through self-report, which is an unreliable tool. Thus, the purpose of this study is to assess associations between shiftwork and objectively measured PA among shift workers. PA was measured in sample of 328 female healthcare workers. 160 of those participants were non-shift workers and 168 were shift workers. Participants were instructed to wear an accelerometer for seven consecutive days in order to retrieve results on the intensity (sedentary, light, moderate and vigorous) of PA each participant engaged in. The differences between PA in shift workers and non-shift workers were determined using ANCOVA and controlled for age as a covariate. With the staggering rates of chronic and metabolic diseases amongst shift workers, the identification of PA is crucial. Results can be used to guide PA interventions in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".