MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989726827 · doi:10.1080/19398441.2010.488032

Renewal, strength and commitment to self and others: older women’s reflections of the benefits of exercise using Photovoice

2010· article· en· W1989726827 on OpenAlexafffund
Joanie Sims‐Gould, Laura Hurd Clarke, Maureen C. Ashe, John A. Naslund, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Research in Sport and Exercise · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal Health
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Medical Services FoundationMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsPhotovoicePsychologyPhysical activityFace (sociological concept)GerontologyCognitionApplied psychologySocial psychologyMedical educationMedicinePhysical therapySociologyVisual artsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Readers should also refer to the journal's website at http://www.informaworld.com/rqrs and check volume 2, issue 2 to view the visual material in colour. This study used Photovoice to examine how 38 older women (aged 65–75) perceived and visualised their physical health and the benefits of engaging in an exercise programme. Recruited from an exercise programme designed to examine the influence of exercise on executive function (cognition), the women were given disposable cameras and asked to photodocument how they experienced health and physical activity. Over a two‐month time period the participants collectively took over 700 photographs and each participated in a face‐to‐face interview. The photographs and interview transcripts were organised and analysed using a process designed by the researchers based on other Photovoice research. The analysis revealed that the women perceived exercise to be a means of renewing the self, a way to regain physical and social strength and an essential tool that would enable them to maintain their commitments to themselves and to others. We discuss our findings in light of the research and theorising concerning ageism and physical activity in later life.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.522
GPT teacher head0.651
Teacher spread0.129 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Research in Sport and ExerciseSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207