Health/Service Providers’ Perspectives on Barriers to Healthy Weight Gain and Physical Activity in Pregnant, Urban First Nations Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine health/service providers' perspectives of barriers to healthy weight gain and physical activity for urban, pregnant First Nations women in Ottawa, Canada. Through the use of semi-structured interviews, we explored 15 health/service providers' perspectives on the complex barriers their clients face. By using a postcolonial feminist lens and a social determinants of health framework, we identified three social determinants of health that the health/service providers believed to have the greatest influence on their clients' weight gain and physical activity during pregnancy: poverty, education, and colonialism. Our findings are then contextualized within existing Statistics Canada and the Ottawa Neighbourhood Study data. We found that health/service providers are in a position to challenge colonial relations of power. We conclude by urging health/service providers, researchers, and policymakers alike to take into consideration the ways in which these social determinants of health and their often synergistic effects affect urban First Nations women during pregnancy.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".