"My Heart Couldn't Take It": Older Women's Beliefs About Exercise Benefits and Risks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily physical activity is advocated by various federal health agencies for reducing many of the health risks affecting old age, but older women are generally not heeding the message. The Health Belief Model proposes that sedentary living occurs when people believe that the risks of exercising exceed the benefits. To clarify the beliefs that act as incentives and barriers to more active living, the author asked 143 independent-living women aged 70 and older to respond to open-ended questions on their beliefs about benefits and risks for 6 fitness activities: brisk walking, aquacize, riding a bike or cycling, stretching slowly to touch the toes, modified push-ups from a kneeling position, and supine curl-ups. Content analysis organized perceived risks into 19 categories and perceived benefits into 6 categories providing original data on the conceptions that older women hold about the utility of various types of physical activity. Respondents generally recognized broad health benefits to fitness activities, but beliefs about risks were strong, anatomically specific, and sometimes sensational in description. The findings suggest that many older women feel physically vulnerable, are unsure about their actual risks and benefits in exercise settings, and, in the face of that uncertainty, report medical reasons why they should be excused from fitness-promoting exercise.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it