MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406979144 · doi:10.1177/13591053241311984

Proposing and refining a physical activity intervention for individuals living with COPD

2025· article· en· W4406979144 on OpenAlexaff
Emilie Michalovic, Tayah M. Liska, Dennis Jensen, Lauren Saletsky, Meaghan Osborne, Shane N. Sweet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Research
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCOPDIntervention (counseling)Peer supportMedicinePhysical activityPhysical therapySocial supportPsychologyClinical psychologyNursingPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Preliminary test a two stage, self-determination theory (SDT) and participation-based physical activity and peer support intervention for individuals with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). In Stage 1, four focus groups were conducted to provide insights about individuals’ needs and experiences with physical activity. In Stage 2, four individuals with COPD aged 76–90 years (50% female) participated in an eight-week online physical activity and peer support intervention. Pre-post assessments evaluated acceptability, feasibility, and functioning. Participants ( n = 14; 36% female) identified that a physical activity-based program using functional task-based exercises and peer support is acceptable for adults with COPD in Stage 1. Three of the four participants improved their satisfaction with and self-reported participation in physical activity in Stage 2. Participants reported the intervention supported their psychological needs, associated with SDT. The online, peer support, participation-based physical activity intervention is feasible in its virtual delivery for physical activity promotion for individuals with COPD.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) ResearchFrench-language works237,207