How older adults negotiate constraints to leisure-time physical activities following a heart attack
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leisure has been found to improve later-life well-being and help people cope with life changes (Dupuis & Alzheimer [2008]. Leisure and ageing well. World Leisure Journal, 50(2), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/04419057.2008.9674538; Michèle et al., [2019]. Social and leisure activity profiles and well-being among the older adults: A longitudinal study. Aging and Mental Health, 23(1), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1394442). Leisure activities, including leisure-time physical activity, may significantly affect healthy aging and improve health-related quality of life among older persons. However, there is a lack of literature revealing how older adults negotiate the constraints of leisure-time physical activity following a heart attack. This research aimed to explore the constraints of leisure-time physical activity participation and the process of constraints negotiation among older people who have had a heart attack. In this qualitative descriptive study, data were collected from 10 participants through face-to-face interviews. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Participants experienced intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints to leisure-time physical activity. However, participants negotiated these constraints when they were motivated to be physically active following the heart attack.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it