Relationships Between Physical Activity, Social Interaction, and Sense of Belonging Among Older Adults Living in Community-Based Congregate Housing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about what factors influence the relationship between physical activity (PA) and sense of belonging. We examined relationships between different forms of PA, social interaction, and belonging among older adults living in community-based congregate housing. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-five participants living in community-based congregate housing in Edmonton, Alberta completed a survey. Participants provided information about demographics; self-reported PA (gardening, active transportation, and recreational PA); objectively measured PA (moderate-to-vigorous PA, light PA, step cadence); frequency of interaction; and neighborhood belonging. A series of regression analyses examined associations between PA, social interaction, and belonging. RESULTS: Gardening was associated with a sense of belonging, while active transportation and recreational PA were not. Moderate-to-vigorous PA and step cadence showed negative relationships of questionable practical significance, while light PA showed no relationships. Moderate-to-vigorous PA, gardening, and active transportation predicted more frequent social interactions outside of (but not inside) housing complexes. The relationship between gardening and belonging was not significant when social interaction was added to the model. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the importance of contextual factors-including type or domain of PA and setting-in considering the association between PA and sense of belonging among older adults. IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners and decision makers may consider community gardening to promote PA and connections among older adults in community-based congregate housing. Prospective research is needed to understand if, and how, belonging may be fostered for other domains and types of PA in this population (e.g., quality of interaction as a mediator).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".