Perceptions of Sedentary Behavior Among Socially Engaged Older Adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To better understand the perceptions of sedentary behavior, its pros and cons, and the barriers associated with reducing sedentary time as it pertains to older adults. Design and Methods: Four focus group sessions were conducted with older adults (n = 26). Each focus group lasted approximately 45min, was led by an experienced qualitative researcher, and utilized probing questions on the definition of sedentary behavior, pros and cons of sedentary behavior, and programming needs for sedentary time reduction. Sessions were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers independently extracted data from the transcripts and identified major themes and subthemes. Data on sociodemographics and current activity levels were collected via questionnaires. Results: Participants were 74±8.5 years old and were primarily women (77%). They self-reported sitting for 5.6±1.7h per day and engaging in physical activity for 172±115min/day. Four themes were identified. The first theme indicated that older adults have varied definitions of the term sedentary behavior and that they have a negative perception of this term. The second theme indicated that participants perceived social, cognitive, and physical benefits to the sedentary activities in which they engaged, and that these activities were meaningful. The third theme indicated that physical health was the only perceived disadvantage of engaging in sedentary activities. Finally, the fourth theme indicated that there were several perceived barriers to sedentary time reduction, both person and environment related. Implications: These findings have implications for use of terminology in policy and public health strategies targeting sedentary time reduction in older adults.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it