Keeping kids safe: caregivers' perspectives on the determinants of physical activity in rural Indigenous communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Physical activity is one way to ameliorate the disproportionately high obesity rates among Indigenous children yet little is known about the determinants of physical activity in First Nation communities. METHODS: A socioecological approach was used to explore the determinants that influence physical activity among Indigenous children in six First Nation communities in north-eastern Ontario, Canada. A thematic analysis of eight focus groups with 33 caregivers of Indigenous children was conducted. RESULTS: Caregivers reported that the present patterns of physical activity among children are different from previous generations, who were physically active through walking, outside play and physically demanding chores. Changes in lifestyles, influenced by the consequences of colonization, have resulted in reduced physical activity. Three themes emerged as present day impediments to physical activity: recreational technology, caregivers' safety concerns, and barriers to community activation. CONCLUSION: There is a dynamic interrelationship among the proximal, intermediate and distal determinants of children's physical activity with colonial policies continuing to have impacts in the participating First Nation communities. Community generated research and strategies are important ways to ameliorate physical inactivity and obesity among First Nation children.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".