MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1625668660 · doi:10.3928/00989134-20080701-11

Participation in Physical Activity: Influences Reported by Seniors in the Community and in Long-Term Care Facilities

2008· article· en· W1625668660 on OpenAlexaff
Lori E. Weeks, Sheila Profit, Barbara Campbell, Hope Graham, Andrea Chircop

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gerontological Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGerontologyThematic analysisPhysical activityTheme (computing)PsychologyLife course approachLong-term careFace (sociological concept)Qualitative researchMedicineNursingDevelopmental psychologySociologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This qualitative study identified influences on participation in physical activity among seniors living in the community and in long-term care facilities. A total of 24 seniors participated in individual face-to-face interviews. Through thematic analysis, the overarching theme identified that past experiences, life transitions, and future concerns influence seniors' participation in physical activity. This overarching theme helps explain the complexity of physical activity participation in later life. The subthemes included intergenerational influences, establishment of early physical activity patterns, family transitions over the life course, changing health status over the life course, and future health concerns. A greater understanding of an individual's life history is paramount for nurses to help increase participation in physical activity among seniors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gerontological NursingSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207