Becoming One with Nature: A Nature Intervention for Individuals Living with Cancer Participating in a Ten-Week Group Exercise and Wellness Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive outcomes for psychological and physiological health have resulted from a nature experience. However, evidence is limited for nature-based interventions and their effect on a cancer population. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to determine if incorporating the One Nature Challenge (ONC) into a ten-week group exercise program (WE-Can) for individuals living with cancer could offer additional psychological and/or physiological benefits to those previously observed in WE-Can. For this study, two separate ONCs were implemented throughout two seasons (summer and winter) to formulate a ONC group (n = 18; 60 ± 12yrs). Previous WE-Can graduates were used as a control group (n = 160; 59 ± 11yrs) for this study. Psychological and physiological assessments were administered in a pre- and post-test. In addition, nature relatedness (NR; ones' relationship with nature) was measured at the beginning, middle, and end of WE-Can. Following five weeks, the ONC began and participants tracked the days they experienced nature for at least thirty-minutes (24 ± 6 days), for a thirty-day period. The ONC finished concurrently with WE-Can where post-evaluations and focus groups were administered immediately following. No additional gain in overall health was found between groups. However, aerobic fitness and fatigue significantly improved for the ONC group. This was supported by frequent activities and self-reported restoration of the mind while experiencing nature. In conclusion, the lack of overall improvement could be limited by sample size and the high level of NR prior to ONC, indicating participants were already 'one with nature.'
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".