Are Experiences of Discrimination Associated With Views of Physical Activity and Climate Policy Support in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social climate refers to the general feelings, norms, and opinions in a society and may be affected by experiences of discrimination. This study examined whether experiences of discrimination are associated with the social climate of physical (in)activity and support for policies addressing dual benefits of physical activity (PA) and climate change. METHODS: Data from the 2023 Social Climate Survey were used (n = 1950; ≥18 y). Adherence to PA guidelines, perceived importance of PA, social norms, and support for 8 policy actions addressing dual benefits were each regressed on experiences of discrimination. RESULTS: Experiencing discrimination was not associated with the importance of PA, causal attribution of physical inactivity (individual vs external), adherence to PA guidelines, or policy support addressing PA and climate change. However, experiencing discrimination was associated with social norms that are favorable to PA: seeing children playing actively outdoors (odds ratio [OR]: 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), perceiving that half of people their age meeting PA guidelines (OR: 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06), agreeing with societal disapproval of physical inactivity (OR: 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), and having important people (eg, family/friends) meeting PA guidelines (OR: 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Unlike structural discrimination, interpersonal experiences of discrimination may not shape the perceived importance of and engagement in PA. However, experiencing discrimination may be associated with an individual's perceptions of their social environment, including how they observe and interpret the behaviors of others within their community. Generally strong support for policies addressing dual benefits, regardless of experiences with discrimination, aligns well with the planetary health agenda.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".