Canadian Family Wellness: Exploring Caregiver Perceptions of Physical Wellness of Families with Children Ages 2 to 8
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this thesis, the focus is on caregivers’ perceptions and experiences of family physical wellness in the context of play, outdoor interactions, and physical activity in relation to two theoretical frameworks: Swarbrick and Yudof’s (2015) eight dimensions of wellness and the five domains of the social determinants of health (SDOH) (WHO, 2008; Healthy People 2030, n.d.-c). According to Prilleltensky and Nelson (2000), family wellness denotes caregivers' enjoyment of both physical and intellectual wellness, alongside having adequate financial wellness resources and a supportive environment for both the child and caregiver’s wellness. In semi-structured qualitative interviews, nineteen caregivers (n = 19) were asked about their family physical wellness, inclusive of four physical wellness dimensions (exercise, healthy eating, time away from TV and screens, sleep). Currently, there is minimal research exploring caregivers’ perceptions and experiences of their own wellness as a well as their family’s wellness. This study aims to determine the contribution of the caregiver in their family’s wellness and their perspectives and shared insights as to how they are doing. The results of this study, through thematic analysis, revealed four significant themes and several subthemes and sub subthemes that were important to caregivers and families: (1) Environmental Wellness with subthemes (a) location matters, (b) impact of weather, and (c) outdoor interactions; (2) Physical Wellness with subthemes (a) exercise, (b) healthy eating, (c) time away from TV and screens, and (d) sleep; (3) Self-care with subthemes (a) the shoulds and societal pressures, and (b) conscious self-care advocates; and (4) Play with subthemes (a) learning through play, (b) outdoor play, (c) social and family connections, and (d) playful life balance. The implications of these shared themes, in connection to current literature, provides future research directions in the realm of family wellness.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".