A physical literacy strategy for urban indigenous families through the life cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extensive historical, cultural, and social factors have contributed to poor health outcomes among Indigenous People in Canada (Adelson, 2005). In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) call[ed] upon the federal government to support reconciliation by ensuring policies to promote physical activity as a fundamental element of health and well-being (p.10). Our community-based research project aimed to develop a Physical Literacy Strategy for Urban Indigenous Families Through the Life Cycle; this two-year project involved reciprocal collaboration between researchers and community members, with the aim of social change (DeLemos, 2006). Our conceptualization of physical literacy (Whitehead, 2016) was grounded in a holistic understanding of Indigenous People's health and wellness, including the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions represented by the Medicine Wheel (Waldram, et al., 2006). The project included: (a) a community needs assessment conducted through six sharing circles (Lavallee, 2009) with 90 community members across the life course; these explored individuals' experiences related to health, wellness and physical activity, and perceptions of cultural connectedness; (b) a three-month physical literacy intervention program exposing participants to a range of health and wellness activities within the immediate and broader community; and (c) post-program discussions involving sharing and reflection. Five key recommendations emerged, offering an important starting point for change within this urban Indigenous community. We discuss the project in the context of previous research, the TRC's (2015) calls to action, and implications for a spectrum of stakeholders including government, educators, community organizations and partners. Acknowledgments: We wish to acknowledge the community members who helped make this project possible by sharing their thoughts and experiences. We also wish to acknowledge the generous financial support provided by the City of Toronto, the Ontario Trillium Foundation, and the Aboriginal Sport and Wellness Council of Ontario.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".