Bibliographic record
Abstract
Group-based exercise programs have been shown to be one means of not only increasing activity levels for older adults but sustaining physical activity. However, research has shown that only a small proportion of older Manitobans participate in exercise classes. The purposes of this study were to determine: 1) what group-based exercise programs exist in Manitoba for older adults (55 years and older), 2) where these programs are delivered, 3) how these programs are designed, 4) who are the instructors of these programs and 5) what elements are included that may encourage older adults to attend and adhere to them. This study was completed using a cross-sectional design and an online survey of instructors who deliver group-based exercise programs to older adults in Manitoba. One hundred twelve instructors who completely filled out the survey, and 158 programs were included in the data analysis. The majority of instructors were relatively older (≥50 years, 69.7%), female (86.6%), employed (85.4%), had exercise-related certifications (86.6%) and over 5 years of experience in delivering exercise programs (54.5%). The majority of programs required a fee for participation (77.8%) and were mixed-gender (84.2%). All of the single-gender programs were female-only programs. The majority of programs had opportunities for social interaction (70.9%). More than half of the programs were performed in Winnipeg (66.9%) and no programs were reported in Northern Manitoba. Regarding rural-urban disparity, there were 19 programs (13.7%) in rural areas and 86.3% were in urban areas. In conclusion, most instructors were considered to be knowledgeable and experienced in leading exercise programs, which are key assets to encourage older adults to attend and adhere to exercise programs. Having a small number of free programs, no male-only programs, and regional disparity could contribute to a lower participation rate in exercise programs in Manitoba.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".