Assessing the Importance of Social and Environmental Supports for Leisure-Time Physical Activity in a Unique Socio-Cultural and Geographical Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have found important differences among population sub-groups when considering their ‘determinants of physical activity’. The health of Francophones and Northern Ontario residents in Canada has been assessed as relatively poorer than the general population. Understanding the determinants of physical activity in these populations holds considerable promise for well-informed public health intervention. This quantitative study examined the social and environmental determinants of physical activity among two language groups and geographical locations within Northern Ontario Canada. A convenience sample of 256 adults was surveyed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire, Social Support & Exercise Survey, and the Environmental Supports for Physical Activity Questionnaire. Age and gender adjusted regression models identified that social support from family and peers played a limited role in the Francophone sample compared to the Anglophone sample. Further, perceptions of environmental supports for physical activity in urban and rural locations within Northern Ontario were relatively similar and few of these variables emerged as positive contributors to leisure-time activity levels. Our findings suggest that the importance of social support for physical activity differs based on socio-linguistic status and that environmental supports play a limited role among active northerners. Future research directions and recommendations for practice are offered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".