Rural Physical Activity in the Mississippi Delta: the moderating influence of stray dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presence of stray dogs is a perceived barrier that may lead to lower physical activity levels, especially in rural areas. Gender may play a role in this relationship. Linear regression was used to assess relationships between physical activity days per week, stray dogs, and gender using the Rural Eastern Louisiana Food Accessibility and Active Transportation survey (N = 677). Potentially confounding covariates were controlled in analyses, including race, education, age, self-rated health, and poverty. Findings revealed that gender but not stray dogs was related to physical activity, with men averaging one more physical activity day per week than women. However, men with concerns about stray dogs reported significantly fewer physical activity days per week compared to men without such concerns. Reported physical activity days per week for women did not differ according to stray dog concerns. Rural men may be more impacted by concerns about stray dogs because they may be more likely to engage in solitary neighborhood-based physical activity. Policy implications include enforcement of leash laws and mobile spay/neuter clinic access in rural communities. Mitigating the threat of loose dogs would remove a barrier to physical activity in rural communities and help to ameliorate rural health disparities, especially among men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".