Physical Activity Among Older Women Living in Rural Areas in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although there is strong evidence linking physical activity in older age with wellbeing and health benefits, these relationships tend to be under-researched in a rural context. A scoping review was conducted to identify what is known about physical activity among older women living in rural Canada. The search strategy was intentionally broad, with eight databases, academic journals, and websites scanned for research and grey literature related to Canada, in English, from 2000 to 2022. 33 studies, reviews, and reports were included in the final selection. These articles indicate that physical activity among older women living in rural Canada is influenced by a multitude of layers, contexts, conditions, and environments, with outcomes dependent on a mixture of personal, relational, community, societal, and governmental factors. In general, the women are committed to creating and maintaining an active lifestyle, and supporting their local rural community to enable these activities. While the social environment can proscribe physical activity through ageist attitudes and restrictive socio-cultural norms, social support from family and community members mitigates against these constraints. Rural infrastructure, geography, climate (seasons and weather), as well as transportation and policy issues may also impede the physical activity opportunities of the women. Some of the problems related to sustaining and resourcing recreational activity in rural communities are partly addressed through the implications presented in the articles. Among others, these suggestions relate to leadership and learning opportunities, public engagement, and the partnership working involved in supporting physical activity in rural areas. However, further research is long overdue.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".