MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308549807 · doi:10.1123/japa.2021-0394

“To Be Moving Is to Be Alive”: A Walk-Along Study Describing Older Public Housing Tenants’ Perceptions of Physical Activity

2022· article· en· W4308549807 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kadia Saint‐Onge, Paquito Bernard, Célia Kingsbury, Janie Houle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Physical Activity · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionGerontologyPromotion (chess)PsychologyPhysical activityPerspective (graphical)PopulationConstruct (python library)MedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Few studies have focused on older public housing tenants' perceptions of physical activity. Greater understanding of how they define, appreciate, and engage in physical activity could lead to better targeted promotion and reduced health inequalities for this subgroup of the population. We conducted 26 walk-along interviews with older public housing tenants in Montreal (Canada). Tenants were aged 60-93 years and lived in either one of three study sites including a commercial, a residential, and a mixed land-use area. Physical activity was described as a multidimensional construct through six interdependent dimensions: physiological, emotional, interpersonal, occupational, intellectual, and existential. Participants perceived physical activity as having potential for both well-being and ill-being. Perceptions of physical activity were a function of age, physical capacity, gender, culture, revenue, and relation to community. These results support using a life-course perspective and a broader definition in promoting physical activity to older public housing tenants.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and Physical ActivitySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207