METHODOLOGY Open Access Methodology Process description and evaluation of Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This paper describes the process used to arrive at recommended physical activity guidelines for Canadian school-aged children and youth (5-17 years), adults (18-64 years) and older adults (≥65 years). Methods: The Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) Physical Activity Measurement and Guidelines (PAMG) Steering Committee used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research Evaluation (AGREE II) Instrument to inform the guideline development process. Fourteen background papers and five systematic reviews were completed. Systematic review authors appraised and synthesized the data, and proposed specific recommendations at an international consensus conference of invited experts and key stakeholders. Independently, an international panel of experts interpreted the evidence from the systematic reviews and developed recommendations following attendance at the Consensus Conference. Results: Using the AGREE II instrument as a guide, specific foci for each of the guidelines were defined and systematic review methodology was used to synthesize the evidence base. The expert panel, CSEP PAMG Steering Committee and methodological consultants reviewed the systematic reviews and Consensus Statement. The expert panel achieved consensus on the level of evidence informing the physical activity guidelines and developed a separate document outlining key recommendations, interpretation of the evidence and justification of each recommendation.
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 | 0.359 | 0.466 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.007 |
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".