The contribution of active transportation to population physical activity levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explored the contribution of active (nonmotorized) transportation, including walking and cycling, to physical activity (PA) levels and its association with PA recommendations adherence (youth: ≥ 60 min/day; adults: ≥ 150 min/week) using self-reported domain-specific and accelerometer-measured PA from Cycles 4 to 6 (2014-2019) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (N = 8620). Recreation and household or occupational PA were similar for users and non-users, but accelerometer-measured PA was significantly higher among active transportation users (12-17 years: 56.6 vs. 47.7 min/ day; 18-64 years: 33.4 vs. 22.8 min/day, 65-79 years: 21.5 vs. 13.7 min/day). Active transportation was not associated with meeting the PA recommendation for youth after adjusting for confounders (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-2.11), but it was for adults (18-64 years: aOR = 2.71, 95% CI: 2.18-3.37; 65-79 years: aOR = 2.26, 95% CI: 1.39-3.69). Given its contribution to population PA levels, supporting active transportation should be considered an important tool for health promotion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".