Healthy living: perspectives from adult women in a rural context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore what healthy living means to adult women living in a rural area of a Canadian province. This study examined the benefits and barriers identified by the participants in relationship to healthy lifestyles, as well as the facilitators they recognized in relation to healthy living. Eight women, aged 40-65, from Prince Edward Island took part in the study. Using a descriptive, qualitative approach, data was collected through in-depth interviews. Interview data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed for common themes. Results indicated that the participant’s ideas about healthy living included eating in a healthy way, being physically active, experiencing a personal spirituality, and not having addictions to substances. The participants identified a range of factors that facilitated living a healthy lifestyle including: having balance, having confidence in oneself, being in control, supportive family members and friends, spirituality, and public policy. The participants believed that the benefits of a healthy lifestyle involved alleviating stress, enjoying life, having more energy, and being sick less often. The participants identified a number of barriers to living a healthy lifestyle as well. These include a lack of energy and motivation, stress, a lack of time, conditions in the workplace, the location of the exercise facilities, the size of the community, the cost of food, and the lack of support from family and friends. This research study calls for rethinking the education and teaching strategies used to educate women in the area of healthy living. These strategies should be reframed to address the learner as a whole, thus incorporating the physical, mental, and spiritual aspects of lifestyle choices, with a focus on the physical and socio-cultural environments in which individuals live.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".