MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292221043 · doi:10.1017/s0714980815000598

Physical Activity Perceptions and Influences among Older Adults in Rural Nova Scotia

2016· article· fr· W2292221043 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chad Witcher, Nicholas L. Holt, Wendy Young, Chris M. Blanchard, Donna Murnaghan, John C. Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward IslandMemorial University of NewfoundlandUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNova scotiaContext (archaeology)Thematic analysisPromotion (chess)GerontologyPsychologyQualitative researchPerceptionGeographySociologyMedicinePolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study identified factors that influenced physical activity (PA) participation among older adults from rural settings in Nova Scotia Canada and explored how the rural context may influence PA participation and promotion. Data were collected via individual semistructured interviews with 20 older adults (Mage = 77.5 years) from rural areas of Cape Breton and subjected to thematic analysis procedures (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Four themes representing factors that influence the prioritization of PA were identified: (1) historical context of activity, work, and productivity; (2) already busy with day-to-day activities; (3) being/staying on the go; and (4) cautionary approach. These findings suggest that PA promotion should be contextually salient, and highlight the need for a shared understanding between rural older adults and PA promoters regarding what constitutes being "physically active". Effective promotion of PA among rural older adults may require a shift away from contemporary methods of PA promotion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207