Physical Activity for Older Aboriginal Adults: A Call for Cultural Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) released new PA guidelines for Canadians in 2011, including those for older adults, which communicate the ways in which good health can best be achieved. In this paper, we argue that if we are to have PA guidelines for older adults in Canada, they need to be culturally safe for those who experience disproportionate levels of poor health: Aboriginal older adults. Within this paper, we examine the existing guidelines to determine if they are culturally safe. We show that despite qualitative evidence of the need for culturally safe PA opportunities for Aboriginal peoples, the Canadian PA Guidelines for Older Adults (CSEP, 2012) are not culturally safe for Aboriginal peoples. To address this shortcoming, we use health communication strategies to suggest ways in which the Guide, and in turn other PA resources, could be developed to be culturally safe.
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 | 0.030 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".