Older Mens’ Experiences with and Preferences for Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aim to describe older mens' experiences with physical activity (PA) and their preferences for PA programs. We interviewed 14 men from a Canada-based PA intervention study called Men on the Move, and 5 men from a supplementary sample (who were not intervention participants). Content analysis was used to describe their experiences with PA and program preferences. The socio-ecological perspective and the hegemonic masculinity framework guided the research. PA barriers were low motivation, poor health, lack of time, interests other than PA and a lack of interest in PA, finances, lack of knowledge about PA, injury fear, social influences, inconvenience, weather, caregiving, built/natural environments, low-quality fitness instructors, and program structure. PA facilitators were chores, health, interest, time, motivation, social influences, active transportation, built/natural environments, good weather, program structure, and skilled/knowledgeable fitness instructors. PA program preferences were small group atmosphere, individualized attention/programming, equal number of men and women, sports programming, PA classes, and experienced instructors. Older men have distinct PA experiences. Promoting and designing programs that address their experiences may increase their PA.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".