Exploring trail use and the health of students at a university in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand trail use patterns and other factors that may \ncontribute to the health and well-being of university students in northeastern Ontario, Canada. \nStudents from Laurentian University (LU) were recruited to participate in an online \nquestionnaire that was distributed via the REDCap software. The questionnaire included the \nPerceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Flourishing Scale (FS), and the Leisure Time Physical Activity \nScale (LTPA). A total of 1,367 students participated in the study which represented \napproximately 15% of the student body. The findings indicated that students at LU had high \nlevels of stress and psychological well-being. Students who used trails were significantly more \nlikely to have improved mental health, physical health, and physical activity levels. The top two \nfacilitators to trail use were nature appreciation and outdoor recreation and the top two barriers \nwere intrapersonal factors and lack of knowledge. These findings have implications for health \npromotion opportunities involving outdoor environments, such as trails, at institutions of higher \neducation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".