Who Uses Exercise as a Coping Strategy for Stress? Results From a National Survey of Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence of exercise as a coping behavior for stress, compare this to other coping behaviors, and examine its demographic, behavioral, and health correlates in a nationally representative sample of Canadians. METHOD: We used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey 1.2, a cross-sectional survey of 36,984 Canadians aged 15 and over, and conducted univariate and logistic regression analyses to address our objectives. RESULTS: 40% of Canadians reported using exercise for coping with stress (ranked 8th overall). These individuals were more likely to endorse other 'positive' coping strategies and less likely to use alcohol or drugs for coping. Being younger, female, unmarried, of high SES, and a nonsmoker were associated with higher likelihoods of using exercise as a coping strategy. High levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with increased, and heavy physical activity at work with decreased, odds of reporting using exercise for stress coping. CONCLUSIONS: While reported use of exercise for stress coping is common in the general population, it is less so than several other behaviors. Encouraging exercise, particularly in groups identified as being less likely to use exercise for stress coping, could potentially reduce overall stress levels and improve general health and well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".