Understanding the Relationship Between Nature and Physical Activity in Older Adolescent Girls: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent girls are subjected to gender norms and stereotypes regarding their health and well-being. Research has indicated that women and girls are exposed to unrealistic and unattainable body ideals that affect their relationship with physical activity (PA). In addition, despite suggestions that nature is important for health and well-being, women and girls experience barriers in accessing and connecting with nature due to gender expectations and stereotypes. The purpose of this review is to determine what is known from the existing literature about older adolescent girls’ relationship with nature and PA. This scoping review follows the framework of Arksey and O’Malley. In total, 39 studies were reviewed, and their characteristics were summarized quantitatively and qualitatively. Five themes were identified: (a) Active transportation provides an opportunity for girls to connect PA with nature, (b) Adolescent girls’ navigation of gender norms and barriers while connecting with PA and nature, (c) Perceived safety influences adolescent girls’ relationship with PA and nature, (d) Infrastructure and aesthetics can impact adolescent girls’ connection between PA and nature, and (e) The relationship between PA and nature intersects with girls’ mental well-being. Gaps in the literature are identified and discussed. It is concluded that older adolescent girls’ relationship with nature and PA is influenced by gender norms and perceptions of aspects of their environment, such as safety and aesthetics.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".