MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099266214

Retirement and Weight *

2008· article· en· W7099266214 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespite careWork (physics)Weight gainQuarter (Canadian coin)Empirical evidenceHealth benefits
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retirement from physically demanding work has long served as a healthful respite from backbreaking labor, even if it came too late in life for many. In today’s era of expanding waistlines and increasingly sedentary jobs, however, leaving a physically demanding occupation may produce less healthful outcomes. We find that, during the first six years of retirement, males retiring from strenuous jobs appear to gain weight, while those retiring from sedentary jobs lose it. In particular, retirees from strenuous jobs gain approximately 0.5 more units of BMI, and exhibit relative declines in total exercise. The empirical facts suggest both a direct reduction in job-related exercise, and behavioral substitution towards more leisure-time exercise after retirement. Changes in food intake appear to play little to no role. Finally, the evidence suggests that those retiring from strenuous jobs are at least 25 % more likely to contract diabetes in their retirement years. This is consistent with the negative health impacts of weight gain and reduced exercise. The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institute on Aging.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIsotope Analysis in Ecology→French-language works237,207→