EXERCISE EFFECTS ON WELL-BEING ON CANADIAN WOMEN OVER THE AGE OF 65
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two groups of Canadian women, over the age of 65, were interviewed (n = 20) in a study focused on brain health. The first group (n = 12) regularly attended exercise classes and met the exercise standards of the Canadian Society of Exercise Physiologists for the age group over 65 years for at least six months. Women in the comparison group (n = 8) had been taking adult education classes twice a week or more for at least six months. Thematic coding was used to analyze the results. Both groups reported benefits from their participation in their respective groups. However, the results show that the group who exercised regularly consistently reported improved mood, increased mental alertness, a better ability to handle stress, less pain, and improved sleep. These factors were not reported by the non-exercise group, which did benefit by gaining new knowledge, making new friends and feeling good because they were learning new things. This study suggests that Canadian women over the age of 65 who have been exercising regularly report many of the effects of exercise on the brain that are beneficial to their well-being. They did not specifically mention the new brain cells being made (neurogenesis) nor did they note neuronal rewiring (neuroplasticity), however they did self-report some psychological benefits that the Comparison Group did not report, as noted above. This research has implications for both practice and 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".