The sociality of walking: A post-phenomenological study on everyday walking among parents in Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of sociality – or social relationships – has consequences for health, especially for parents for whom raising a child takes a village. Walking has long been credited with promoting sociality. Yet the link between sociality and walking has received insufficient attention. To understand how walking supports sociality among parents in a Quebec context, we conducted a post-phenomenological study focusing on everyday walking. The experience of walking was explored through go-along interviews and follow up interviews with 26 parents. The thematic analysis illuminated that walking fostered sociality via three interrelated processes. Firstly, walking weaved people together via the spatial permeations it promoted and associated relations of familiarities, commonalities and mnemotics. Secondly, walking led participants to relate to their community through encounters, facilitating the emergence of sociality in the form of recognition, alienation, resonance and dissonance. Lastly, walking enabled communions through the social spaces created by the movement such as villages or bubbles. This study illustrates the unique contribution of walking to an underappreciated aspect of health: the social aspect. This work ultimately opens the door to the implementation of mundane interventions that target social heath.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".