An investigation of rural older adult physical activity participation in Nova Scotia toward developing strategies to promote physical activity participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the relatively high rates of physical inactivity among older adults in Nova Scotia (NS) (Statistics Canada, 2011), the purpose of this study was two-fold: 1. To examine the physical activity (PA) beliefs, perceptions and experiences of rural older adults in rural NS and 2. To examine municipal, regional, and provincial-level stakeholders' perceptions of, and experiences with, PA promotion in NS. Data were obtained through semi-structured and group interviews with 20 older adults (Mage = 77.5 years, age range: 68-97 years) and 12 stakeholders (Mage = 49.8 years, age range: 33-74 years). Consistent with Corbin and Strauss (2007), elements of microanalysis, open coding and axial coding were used throughout the data analysis process, interwoven with ongoing data collection. Analysis resulted in the construction of two major categories. The first, Factors that Influence Activity Prioritization consisted of four concepts (Historical Context of Activity, Work and Productivity, Already Busy with Day-to-Day Activities, Being/Staying on the Go, and Cautionary Approach). The second, Promoting Physical Activity Among Older Adults depicted strategies for the promotion of PA within the context of particular PA routines and prioritized activities. In terms of PA promotion, several factors appeared important including the prioritization of work-time/productive PA, conceptualizations of PA and norms, beliefs and perceptions of aging and PA. The findings of this study suggest PA needs to be culturally relevant and salient. Therefore, with respect to promoting PA among rural older adults in NS, it appears prudent to shift the focus away from conventional methods of PA promotion.Acknowledgments: CIHR Planning and Development Grant - Mobility in Aging Competition
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".