Erratum To: five-year predictors of physical activity decline among adults in low-income communities: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract After publication it was brought to our attention that the information for one of the variables in Table 1 was incorrect (Weiss, O'Loughlin et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2007, 4:2). The variable in question is "Use of a neighborhood facility for activity". In the first column, the first row should read "yes", and the second row, "no". In the second column, the first row should read 25.8 (41) and the second row, 41.3 (152). Table 1 Unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios for potential predictors of becoming inactive [1]. Potential predictor Participants who became inactive Unadjusted OR (95% CI) Adjusted OR (95% CI) Sex, % (n) Male 31.1 (77) 1.00 (Ref.) 1.00 (Ref.) Female 41.6 (116) 1.58 (1.10, 2.27) 1.63 (1.09, 2.43) Age (years), mean (SD) 39.5 (12.2) 1.03 (1.01, 1.05) 1.02 (1.01, 1.04) Self-rated health, % (n) Excellent 29.8 (50) 1.70 (1.35, 2.16) 1.39 (1.05, 1.84) Good 32.6 (84) Average 57.8 (48) Poor/Very poor 64.7 (11) BMIa, % (n) <25 32.1 (117) 1.00 (Ref.) 1.00 (Ref.) =25 46.6 (76) 1.84 (1.26, 2.69) 1.57 (1.03, 2.40) Smoking status, % (n) Current smoker 37.5 (77) 1.00 (Ref.) 1.00 (Ref.) Past/Never smoker 36.2 (121) 1.06 (0.73, 1.53) 0.98 (0.78, 1.23) Income, % (n) <20,000 39.5 (68) 0.82 (0.65, 1.03) 0.95 (0.73, 1.24) 20,000–40,000 35.8 (62) 40,000+ 30.2 (42) Self-efficacy score, mean (SD) 2.2 (0.6) 1.61 (1.20, 2.26) 1.46 (1.00, 2.14) Use of a neighborhood facility for activity, % (n) Yes 25.8 (41) 1.00 (Ref.) 1.00 (Ref.) No 41.3 (152) 2.03 (1.34, 3.06) 1.61 (1.02, 2.55) Education, % (n) Elementary/some secondary 52.6 (50) 0.74 (0.63, 0.86) N/A* Completed secondary/some college 40.2 (47) Completed college 32.5 (27) Some post-secondary 29.8 (67) Receives encouragement for activity, % (n) No 35.2 (113) 1.00 (Ref.) N/A* Yes 38.5 (79) 0.87 (0.60, 1.25)
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".