MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6888482551 · doi:10.20381/ruor-5406

Evaluation of Factors Influencing Engagement in Physical Activity in Women during the Transition to Menopause

2012· article· en· W6888482551 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPhysical activityAffect (linguistics)Qualitative researchMenopauseQualitative analysisDescriptive researchDescriptive statistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To explore the informational and behavioural factors, that affect women’s participation in physical activity (PA) and body weight changes during perimenopause. Methods: An environmental scan of online health websites to determine availability and quality of information for women about body weight changes during transition to menopause. An interpretive descriptive qualitative study of women age 40 – 60 to explore factors influencing their PA. Descriptive and inductive qualitative analysis were used. Results: Six of 52 websites (11.5%) contained information specific to perimenopausal women, with one site citing evidence. For 26 women interviewed, the most common enabling factors were daily structure, positive feelings, and accountability; while common barriers were disruptions in daily structure, competing demands, and self - sacrifice. Conclusions: There is a lack of information regarding body weight changes for perimenopausal women. Perimenopausal women attribute their PA participation to psychosocial factors, and not the physiology of menopause.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicMenopause: Health Impacts and Treatments→French-language works237,207→