Barriers to physical activity for father’s living in marginalising conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity can be a conduit for improving men's social connectedness as well as physical gains for well-being. However, marginalised men, and fathers in particular, can be challenged to engage in leisure time physical activity. This qualitative study reports how fathers, who experience complex and significant social and health inequities, conceptualise and experience barriers to physical activity. Drawing from focus groups with 17 fathers, and semi-structured interviews with seven service providers about their perspectives on men's physical activity in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside (DTES), a highly marginalised neighbourhood. A masculinities framework was used to describe and contextualise physical activity in fathers' lives. Three themes were inductively derived through the analyses: (1) 'they're busy surviving' a finding referencing the work and limits invoked by poverty wherein survival was triaged ahead of leisure time physical activity; (2) 'there is no activity centre' chronicling the lack of physical activity spaces, programmes and resources available to fathers; and (3) 'lifestyle affects our capability to exercise' a theme detailing how social isolation amplified by factors including housing and opioid crises, and being a father in a resource poor setting imposed significant barriers to physical activity. The findings support reconceptualising physical activity programmes with men who are living in marginalising conditions to address behavioural and structural health inequities in tailoring father-centred programmes and resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".