Современная медико-социальная экспертиза и реабилитация при профессиональных заболеваниях
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine the construct and known-groups validity of the total score of five items adapted from the Community Healthy Activities Model Program for Seniors (CHAMPS) questionnaire to measure outdoor walking (CHAMPS-OUTDOORS) in older adults. Data from the baseline assessment of the Getting Older Adult OUTdoors (GO-OUT) trial were used. Construct validity of the CHAMPS-OUTDOORS used objective measures of outdoor walking (accelerometry-GPS), Ambulatory Self-Confidence Questionnaire, RAND-36, 6-min walk test, 10-m walk test, and Mini-Balance Evaluation System Test. For known-groups validity, we compared the CHAMPS-OUTDOORS of those who walked < or ≥1.2 m/s. Sixty-five participants had an average age of 76.5 ± 7.8 years. The CHAMPS-OUTDOORS was moderately correlated with total outdoor walking time (r = .33) and outdoor steps (r = .33) per week measured by accelerometry-GPS, and weakly correlated with Mini-Balance Evaluation System Test score (r = .27). The CHAMPS-OUTDOORS did not distinguish known groups based on crosswalk speed (p = .33). The CHAMPS-OUTDOORS may be used to assess outdoor walking in the absence of accelerometry GPS. Further research examining reliability is needed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".