Policy and Physical Activity Programs: Understanding the Lived Experiences of Fathers in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of fatherhood in communities that experience marginalization is not well understood in academic literature. Further, there is little known about the implementation and evaluation of physical activity programs that are accessible and suitable for fathers who experience income instability, racial discrimination, precarious housing, gender discrimination, and domestic and/or sexualized violence. In this thesis, which is presented in the publishable paper format and is comprised of two papers, I sought to address these gaps. Informed by a constructionist epistemology and an intersectional poststructuralist theoretical framework, in the first paper, I used document analysis and Bacchi and Goodwin’s (2016) “What’s the problem represented to be approach” to investigate how fathers are represented in the program policies of organizations that provide family-centred services in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. In the second paper, guided by the methodological tenets of community-based participatory research, I used semi-structured interviews and critical discourse analysis to better understand how men’s lived experiences as fathers in the Downtown Eastside shaped their participation in Make a Move: Family Walking Program. Taken together, the findings from both papers provide insight into the lived experiences of fathers and the roles that policy and physical activity play in shaping fatherhood in the Downtown Eastside.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".