Maori physical activity: A review of an indigenous population's participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: Indigenous populations have disparities in health along with disparities in modifiable risk factors, including low participation in physical activity. Given the importance of physical activity in moderating ill health, do all indigenous peoples exhibit low activity prevalence in concert with ill health? If an indigenous population is relatively active, what can be learned about physical activity development that has underlined this activity and could this be transferred to practice in other countries? METHODS: A review of national surveys undertaken since 1997 reporting physical activity prevalence of New Zealanders of different ethnicities, including Maori, was conducted. This was compared with prevalence data from other countries gained from searches of databases including PubMed, MEDLINE, Sports Discus and government websites. Socio-economic and environmental influences were examined with a view to understanding Maori physical activity prevalence. RESULTS: The proportion of active adult Maoris, the indigenous population of New Zealand, is similar to European New Zealanders. For example, the Ministry of Health has reported that 60% and 51% of Maori males and females respectively, and 58% and 50% of European men and women respectively, undertake at least 30 minutes of physical activity on at least five days per week. These findings are at odds with other indigenous populations, with the possible exception of Canada. The prevalence of undertaking no leisure-time physical activity is 48.7% for American Indian/Alaskan Native American women compared with 30.7% of white American women; 37.2% for American Indian/Alaskan Native American older adults compared with 29.3% of white American older adults; and 12% for Maori compared with 10% for all New Zealanders. CONCLUSIONS: Despite health disparities, Maori are at least as active as European New Zealanders. The reasons for this lack of disparity in physical activity prevalence between Maori and European New Zealanders could be due to environmental influences, including those in the socio-cultural and policy environment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".