MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3116540400 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igaa057.3524

An Exploration of Online Exercise Participation of Older Manitobans During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020· article· en· W3116540400 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michelle M. Porter, Mikyung Lee, Ruth Barclay, Stephen M. Cornish, Nicole Dunn, Jacquie Ripat, Kathryn M. Sibley, Sandra C. Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPsychologyOnline communityThe InternetMedical educationComputer-assisted web interviewingOnline chatMedicineApplied psychologyGerontologySocial psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the COVID-19 pandemic, in-person exercise programs for older people were temporarily closed, and some were replaced with online exercise. We explored the online exercise experiences of older people in Manitoba, Canada, using an online survey. We recruited a convenience sample (≥ 65 years), primarily through community organizations, and 745 people (57.5% female) consented. About 38.2% reported participating in online exercise during the pandemic. Most used pre-recorded classes (80.4%), from their local community (79.7%), and YouTube was the most used platform (57.4%). Almost all (82.7%) found the classes had the right variety and intensity. Of those who had participated in online exercise, 67.0% said they would participate in an online exercise class outside of a pandemic time. Participants like the following aspects better about online exercise: no transportation arrangements, it doesn’t matter what they wear, no travel time, and they like to exercise without others seeing them. However, they also miss being with and socializing with others, and they reported feeling unsafe when the instructor cannot see them. Of those who did not participate online, several reasons were given: they prefer to exercise with others in the same room, they prefer to exercise with an instructor directly present, no appropriate device, and their internet is not reliable. Many also provided examples of future circumstances when they might participate online, including: when the weather is not conducive to outdoor exercise, and if they can overcome technical issues. Lessons learned from this study can help those delivering online exercise in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207