MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197961841 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000002365

Leisure but Not Occupational Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Associated With Better Health

2021· article· en· W3197961841 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Gallagher, Lucas J. Carr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWorkplace Health, Safety and Compensation Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedentary behaviorPhysical activityOccupational safety and healthEnvironmental healthLeisure timePsychologyGerontologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study explores relations between occupational and leisure-time physical activity (OPA, LTPA) and sedentary behavior (OSB, LTSB) and several health outcomes. METHODS: A total 114 full-time workers had their body composition, waist circumference, height, weight, resting heart rate, and resting blood pressure measured. ActivPal monitor measured physical activity behaviors. Stress, mood, and pain were measured with ecological momentary assessment. General linear models were used to examine the relationship between high and low OPA, LTPA, OSB, and LTSB with each health outcome while controlling for covariates. RESULTS: The high LTPA group had lower body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.04) and better mood (P = 0.007) than the low LTPA group. The high LTSB group had higher systolic blood pressure (P = 0.001), higher diastolic blood pressure (P = 0.01), higher BMI (P = 0.027), higher body fat percentage (P = 0.003), higher waist circumference (P = 0.01), and worse mood (P = 0.032) than the low LTSB group. No differences were found between OPA and OSB groups. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest there may be differential relations between PA and SB accumulated during leisure versus occupational time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207