Healthy Eating and Active Living: Rural-Based Working Men’s Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a pressing need for health promotion programs focused on increasing healthy eating and active living among "unreached" rural-based men. The purpose of the current study was to describe rural-based working men's views about health to distil acceptable workplace approaches to promoting men's healthy lifestyles. Two focus group interviews included 21 men who worked and lived in northern British Columbia, Canada. Interviews were approximately 2 hours in duration; data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Themes inductively derived included (a) food as quick filling fuels, (b) work strength and recreational exercise, and (c) (re)working masculine health norms. Participants positioned foods as quick filling fuels both at work and home as reflecting time constraints and the need to bolster energy levels. In the theme work strength and recreational exercise, men highlighted the physical labor demands pointing to the need to be resilient in overcoming the subarctic climate and/or work fatigue in order to fit in exercise. In the context of workplace health promotion programs for men, participants advised how clear messaging and linkages between health and work performance and productivity and cultivating friendly competition among male employees were central to reworking, as well as working, with established masculine health norms. Overall, the study findings indicate that the workplace can be an important means to reaching men in rural communities and promoting healthy eating and active living. That said, the development of workplace programs should be guided by strength-based masculine virtues and values that proactively embrace work and family life.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".