Barriers and supports for healthy eating and physical activity for first nation youths in northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate barriers and supports for healthy eating and physical activity in youths in a remote sub-arctic community, Fort Albany First Nation, Ontario, Canada. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative multi-method participatory approach. METHODS: The study included a purposive convenience sample of two adult (n = 22) and three youths (n = 30; students in grades 6 to 8) focus groups, unstructured one-on-one interviews with adult key informants (n = 7), and a scan of the community environment. Data were coded and analysed by hand and using NVivo software. Hurricane thinking and concept mapping were used to illustrate findings and relationships between concepts. RESULTS: Dominant emerging themes included empowerment, trust, resources, barriers and opportunities, while major sub-themes included food security, cost, accessibility/availability, capacity building, community support, programs/training and the school snack/breakfast program. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous barriers to healthy nutrition and physical activity exist in this community and are possibly similar in other remote communities. Empowerment is a core issue that should be considered in the design of public health interventions for First Nations youths in remote sub-arctic communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".