Hunting can increase physical activity of Indigenous peoples in Canada: pixem re yecwme'nstut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined whether Indigenous peoples could achieve the Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines (CPAG) for adults while engaging in the cultural practice of hunting. It was hypothesized that Indigenous hunters would achieve or surpass the physical activity (PA) thresholds set forth by the CPAG on days spent hunting. Step count and heart rate were recorded from six male participants during mule deer hunts and days spent on-reserve. Step count was not statistically different between days spent hunting (28 803 ± 10 657 steps) and on-reserve (15 086 ± 7536 steps) ( p = 0.10). Time spent in light (257 ± 45 min; p = 0.04), moderate (118 ± 71 min; p = 0.03), and vigorous (45 ± 42 min; p = 0.04) activities while hunting was greater than on-reserve (light, 180 ± 86; moderate, 71 ± 73; vigorous, 7 ± 10 min). The duration of moderate-to-vigorous PA (119 ± 95 min) for an average day hunting nearly meets the weekly CPAG recommendation of 150 min per week and is 1.8× greater than on-reserve (67 ± 80 min). Data suggest that hunting is probably a viable mode of PA for Indigenous adults to achieve health benefits. A strength of this study is the 10 h of daily recording which includes vehicular transportation to remote hunting areas. The duration of very light/sedentary PA did not differ between hunting (233 ± 211 min) and on-reserve (327 ± 164 min; p = 0.10), and highlights the importance of modernized vehicles in traditional Indigenous activities. A larger sample size would facilitate greater exploration of transportation, as well as success of the hunt on PA. These data suggest that health researchers and clinicians should consider traditional activities such as hunting as a means for Indigenous adults to increase participation in sufficiently vigorous PA to incur health benefits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".