Rural-urban differences in individual and environmental correlates of physical activity in Canadian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering interactions between barriers to physical activity, sociodemographic factors, and rurality can support an equity-focused approach to physical activity promotion. In this cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian Community Health Survey Barriers to Physical Activity Rapid Response module, we compared self-reported individual and social-environmental correlates of physical activity between rural and urban residents and explored interactions with sociodemographic factors. Lack of social support was associated with lower odds of meeting physical activity guidelines for rural residents (OR = 0.71 [0.57,0.89], p = 0.003), but not for urban residents (OR = 0.99 [0.84,1.17], p =.931). Limited access to low-cost facilities was associated with lower odds of meeting physical activity guidelines (OR = 0.85 [0.73,0.98], p = 0.030) regardless of location, but was reported more commonly as a barrier by rural males (27.3 % vs 8.6 % urban) and females (30.0 % vs 9.1 % urban). Inadequate social support was associated with lower odds of meeting physical activity guidelines in females (OR = 0.79 [0.66,0.94], p =.009), but not males (OR = 0.99 [0.84,1.17], p =.931). Individual-level barriers such as time, costs, enjoyment, and confidence were associated with meeting physical activity guidelines for both rural and urban residents. Social-environmental factors appear to be the main contributors to physical activity inequities between rural and urban residents. Interventions designed to bolster social connectedness may support physical activity engagement for people living in rural communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".