Promotion of physical activity in rural, remote and northern settings: a Canadian call to action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The lack of policy, practice and research action on physical activity and features of the physical (built and natural) environments in rural, remote and northern settings is a significant threat to population health equity in Canada. This paper presents a synthesis of current evidence on the promotion of physical activity in non-urban settings, outcomes from a national priority-setting meeting, and a preliminary call to action to support the implementation and success of population-level initiatives targeting physical activity in non-urban settings. METHODS: We conducted a "synopses of syntheses" scoping review to explore current evidence on physical activity promotion in rural, remote, northern and natural settings. Next, we facilitated a collaborative priority-setting conference with 28 Canadian experts from policy, research and practice arenas to develop a set of priorities on physical activity in rural, remote and northern communities. These priorities informed the development of a preliminary Canadian call to action. RESULTS: We identified a limited number of reviews that focused on physical activity and the built environment in rural, remote and northern communities. At the prioritysetting conference, participants representing rural, remote and northern settings identified top priorities for policy, practice and research action to begin to address the gaps and issues noted in the literature. These priorities include self-identifying priorities at the community level; compiling experiences; establishing consistency in research definitions and methods; and developing mentorship opportunities. CONCLUSION: Coordinated action across policy, practice and research domains will be essential to the success of the recommendations presented in this call to action.
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 | 0.108 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".