Walking cadence: A novel strategy to improve the proportion of inactive older adults who reach the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem: Only 13% of older adults reach the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (CPAG) aerobic activity recommendations. Walking cadence (steps per minute) is a strategy proposed to increase walking at the intensity recommended by the CPAG. Methods: Inactive older adults (N = 51) were instructed to walk 150 minutes per week at no specified intensity during phase 1 (6 weeks). In phase 2 (6 weeks), duration was maintained but the group one (N = 23) received instructions on how to reach moderate intensity, using a pedometer and individualized walking cadence, while group two (N = 22) did not. Results: During phase 1, MVPA time and MVPA in 10-minute bouts increased (p ≤ 0.05), and in phase 2 group one continued to increase MVPA time and time in MVPA in 10-minute bouts (p ≤ 0.01), while the group two significantly decreased (p ≤ 0.01). Discussion: Previously inactive older adults can improve time in MVPA in 10-minute bouts, as recommended by the CPAG, by using prescribed walking cadence, a pedometer to track moderate intensity, and practicing walking at this cadence.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".