Previous Physical Activity Experiences of Young Female University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite numerous physical and mental health benefits of physical activity, the majority of adult females fail to meet the recommended physical activity guidelines (Statistics Canada, 2015). As a result, women are less likely to achieve optimum levels of health. As childhood physical activity levels are predictive of physical activity in adulthood (Dennison, Straus, Mellits, & Charney, 1988; Telama et al., 2005), it is imperative to understand how previous physical activity experiences continue to affect women. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore young adult females’ previous physical activity experiences, and how these experiences have influenced participants’ current attitudes and behaviours towards fitness. Data were collected from 12 female students between ages 17 and 24 from the Faculty of Education and the School of Kinesiology and Health Studies (SKHS) at Queen’s University, Canada. Participants were asked to complete a short questionnaire assessing basic demographic information and current and previous physical activity involvement. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted. The data were analyzed using a thematic approach. \nFour key themes emerged from the data: (1) Social Agents, (2) Expectations, (3) Values and Costs, and (4) Environmental Influences. All participants engaged in physical activity as children; however, those women who were less physically active at the time of the study experienced a decrease in fitness levels during adolescence. At this time, the three students who were less active (Semi-Active Students) began to notice individual differences in athletic ability. As their physical abilities were perceived as less developed than that of their peers, they started to feel self-conscious when performing in physical education classes. Parental support also decreased for the Semi-Active Students, as parents tended to prioritize academics. The Active Students (n=9) continued to be physically active and were primarily motivated by their intrinsic interest in sports. Positive feedback from teachers and coaches were also influential. Although certain aspects of these themes affected women in different ways, similar trends among the Semi-Active Students and the Active Students emerged from the data, demonstrating implications for future research and practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".