MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3206011405 · doi:10.14288/1.0398368

Women's Barriers To Physical Activity

2021· article· en· W3206011405 sur OpenAlexaff
Briana Chan, Jonah Escarcha, Jason Liu, Tanya Lui, Maarja von Schulmann

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiquePhysical Activity and Health
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPhysical activityPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The purpose of our study was to explore UBC students' satisfaction with UBC Recreation’s current Women’s Only programs. Upon reviewing the literature, it was found that women’s overall participation on university campuses was lower than men due to perceived barriers such as feelings of intimidation and a lack of knowledge. A gap in the literature was found in the kinds of effective programming strategies that could be implemented to increase participation and a sense of safety for Women’s Only programming. Thus, a second purpose of the study was whether Women Only staffing during Women’s Only programming would increase feelings of safety and comfort for participants. We explored both perception of existing UBC Women’s Only programs and the potential influence of women only staffing in our study. This study was conducted through a quantitative survey that was targeted towards UBC students who identified as women and were not Thunderbird Sports Club athletes. The questions covered topics such as the knowledge of existing Women’s Only programs, previous attendance and satisfaction with these programs, and the effects of male staff on comfort and participation. Additionally, there were 2 open ended questions for the opportunity to share what other programs there could be and what they believed could improve their experience in the future. The average subject who had previously participated in UBC Recreation’s Women’s Only programming was satisfied with their experience in the program. Accordingly, positive and satisfactory experiences arose from Women’s only programming and may be enhanced by having only women instructors and staff present. Existing literature reports that women feel more comfortable around spaces that are exclusive to women, which informs our participants’ responses where most individuals state that they would feel safer if only women staff were present in the facility. Additionally, other responses from our participants expressed that Women’s Only programming at UBC can be improved through the introduction of Women’s Only self-defense or other combat sports classes. Current limitations with the survey involved the lack of demographic knowledge of the respondents. Moving forward, future research should consider how other factors such as age, ethnicity and faculty of the students can influence one’s knowledge about Women’s Only fitness programming and preferences to participate in Women’s Only fitness programming. Recommendations suggested by the participants included self-defence classes and masculine-dominated sports such as combat sports to increase their sense of safety and accessibility to sports not popular by women. Having only women staff working during the hours of Women’s Only program, and reserving the space for women will invite and encourage participants to join the fitness programs. Programs run by women provides a mentorship role to the participants as well and creates an empathetic and supportive environment. Lastly, strategic marketing to women in existing UBC clubs, first year events like “Imagine Day” and women faculty members will raise awareness to Women’s Only programs. This can be done by presenting flyers in high traffic areas of campus and having dedicated women’s week. Implementing these changes will encourage participation and overall satisfaction in sport. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,029

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,009
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,223
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Même sujetPhysical Activity and Health→Travaux en français237 207→