Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a current focus on the "obesity epidemic" among Canada's Aboriginal peoples, particularly Aboriginal youth. Physical activity is often promoted in an effort to address obesity, yet the voices of Aboriginal youth in the physical activity literature is limited. Thus, the purpose of this research was to explore the physical activity experiences of Aboriginal youth. Eight Aboriginal youth (ages 15-18 years) participated in one-on-one interviews and follow-up focus group discussions; five themes emerged. Participants explained how physical activity: (1) is collective, (2) is part of me, (3) builds bonds, (4) takes money, and (5) makes you better, faster, stronger, smarter. This research is unique in that it fills a significant gap in the physical activity research literature by employing qualitative methods that support and highlight the voices of Aboriginal youth. The participants were very explicit in their hopes for the development of culturally specific programs that can support Aboriginal youth to be more physically active. Specifically, they argued that funding is needed if youth are to overcome the financial barriers that often prevent them from being physically active. This research has important implications in that it serves as a first step in better understanding the physical activity experiences of Aboriginal youth. Such understanding is needed as it could serve as the foundation for the development of more effective and appropriate physical activity programs and interventions for Aboriginal youth.Acknowledgments: Thank you to the participants for taking the time to participate and share their knowledge, and to the University of Alberta for providing funding to complete this research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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".