MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197428062 · doi:10.48336/vkxb-t213

Barriers to physical activity in visible minorities

2022· dissertation· en· W3197428062 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maria Khawer

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityEthnic groupPsychologySociocultural evolutionGerontologySocial psychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been limited research on the role of visible minority status on health in Canada. In particular, the physical activity of visible minorities has not been extensively examined. Participation in physical activity is influenced by various biological, environmental, and social factors, and these factors act as either facilitators or barriers to physical activity participation. Previous research has shown that the main barriers to participation in physical activity identified by visible minorities have been the different ethnic and cultural norms and practices of participants. A cross-sectional, online survey was conducted to examine the barriers to physical activity in visible minorities living in St. John’s, Newfoundland. Participants included 75 visible minorities who participated in the web-based survey; 52 participants had complete data. A stepwise forward regression model was tested with total physical activity participation as the outcome variable. Sociodemographic, sociocultural, self-efficacy, and health-related variables were not significantly related to total physical activity levels. Only two barrier items were found to be significant and positively and highly correlated to physical activity: physical activity taking too much time away from taking care of family members (ß = 0.42, t = 2.538, p = .017) and not being talented in physical activity (ß = 0.339, t = 2.131, p = .042). This model was a significant fit (F₍₂,₅₆₎ = 5.870, p = . 007) and accounted for 24% of the variance. All other barrier items were found to have insignificant partial correlations and thus did not improve the model. Limitations of the study are discussed with emphasis recruitment of visible minorities and future research recommendations are provided.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207