How the physical inactivity is affected by social-, economic- and physical-environmental factors: an exploratory study using the machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have utilized regression models to investigate the impact of environmental factors on physical activity. However, such approaches are inadequate for data-driven analysis seeking to identify robust associations from the intricate and multi-variable interactions between physical activity and environmental factors. With the emergence of the concept of the exposome, which encompasses the totality of exposures, this paper explores machine learning models for predicting the percentage of physical inactivity in U.S. counties, while considering 28 social-, economic-, and physical-environmental factors. The aim of this study is to address the research gap and gain insight into the complex associations between environmental exposures and physical activity. Five machine learning models were tested, and the performances were compared to select the best classifier for further investigation. This study used data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The mean population of all counties was 102,841, and the mean percentage of population below 18 years was 22.3%. The partial dependence plot analysis indicated that only one feature – bachelor’s degree – exhibited a close-to-linear relationship with physical inactivity. Motor-vehicle crash death rate and mean temperature showed nonlinear and non-monotonic relationships with the predicted percentage of physical inactivity.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".