A Formative Evaluation of the Feel the Power Feel Fit Girls Program (FTPFFGP): A Physical Activity Program for Female Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A formative evaluation was conducted to determine successes, challenges, and improvement areas within Feel The Power Feel Fit Girls Program (FTPFFGP), a program designed to increase physical activity levels among female adolescents. Two cohorts were identified within this study of N=121 participants (n1=53, n2= 68). Key informant interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires were utilized. The results indicated that various promotion strategies were effective but need to be sustained over time; students enjoyed participating and would like additional activities to be provided; resource constraints in providing activities need to be addressed; participants liked the various incentives for participation; having external funding for the program and staff support were deemed essential to the success of the program. On a procede a une evaluation formative pour determiner les reussites, les defis et elements a ameliorer, de Feel The Power Feel Fit Girls (FTPFFG), un programme ayant pour but d’accroitre la pratique d’activite physique chez les adolescentes. Un groupe de 121 adolescentes a ete divise en deux cohortes (n1=53, n2= 68). Les chercheurs ont ensuite interviewe des informatrices cles, mis sur pied des groupes de consultation et distribue des questionnaires. Les resultats ont demontre ce qui suit : il existe diverses strategies de promotion efficaces, mais ces dernieres doivent etre maintenues au fil du temps; les etudiantes aiment participer et veulent qu’on leur propose d’autres activites; la penurie de ressources risque de nuire aux activites et il faut trouver une solution; les participantes aiment les divers incitatifs qui les encouragent a participer; il faut absolument trouver des sources externes pour financer le programme et le personnel. Tous ces elements sont necessaires a la reussite du programme.
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 | 0.046 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".