MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207646122 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6710739

Cycling for health

2021· review· en· W3207646122 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Samantha Green, Peter Sakuls, Sarah Levitt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclingMental healthGreenhouse gasOccupational safety and healthSuicide preventionPoison controlHealth impact assessmentMedicinePhysical activityClimate changeHuman factors and ergonomicsBusinessEnvironmental healthPublic relationsNursingPublic healthPolitical sciencePsychiatryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature about cycling and health, and to provide an overview and discussion of the available evidence. SOURCES OF INFORMATION: were searched in PubMed. Clinical trials, practice reviews, and systematic reviews were included. All reference lists were reviewed for additional articles. MAIN MESSAGE: Climate change is a threat to health. In Canada alone, transportation is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Active transportation, which is any form of human-powered transportation, can mitigate the health effects of the climate crisis while simultaneously improving the health of people. Physical activity improves overall well-being, as well as physical and mental health. Active transportation, particularly cycling, is a convenient way to meet physical activity targets, reduce risk of disease and all-cause mortality, and derive mental health and social benefits. Family physician advocacy for active transportation has been shown to increase cycling levels in patients compared with no physician advocacy. CONCLUSION: Family physicians can help to increase the level of active transportation at the individual patient level through patient education and behaviour change counseling; at the community level through community education and political advocacy; and at the policy level through partnerships with larger organizations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.003

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations43
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207