MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6923576437 · doi:10.14288/hfjc.v14i3.784

Health associations with meeting the Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines for adults and older adults

2021· article· en· W6923576437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Collections · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelinePhysical activityRecreationHealth indicatorPhysical fitnessPublic healthSample (material)Sedentary lifestyle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18-64 years and Adults aged 65 years or older (24hrMG) provide evidence-based recommendations for moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), sedentary behaviour (SB) and sleep. Purpose: To examine whether meeting the overall 24hrMG, and different combinations of guideline recommendations, were associated with health indicators in a representative sample of Canadian adults. Methods: Participants were 8,297 adults aged 18-79 years from the Canadian Health Measures Survey. They were classified as meeting or not meeting each of the 24hrMG recommendations: MVPA (≥150 minutes/week), SB (≤9 hours/day of sedentary time including ≤3 hours/day of recreational screen time), and sleep duration (adults 18-64 years: 7-9 hours/day, adults aged ≥65 years: 7-8 hours/day). A combination of self-reported and device-based measures were used. Indicators of adiposity (n=2), aerobic fitness (n=1), and cardiometabolic health (n=7) were measured. Results: A total of 19.1% of the sample met none, 43.9% met one, 29.8% met two, and 7.1% met all three recommendations. Compared to meeting no recommendations, meeting one, two and all three recommendations was associated with better health for one, six and seven health indicators, respectively (p

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Collections→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→