MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1488817978

Using Youth-Driven Programs to Encourage Physical Activity in Adolescent Girls: A Preliminary Study

2013· article· en· W1488817978 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tanya Forneris, Corliss Bean, Michelle Snowden, Michelle Fortier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPositive Youth DevelopmentClubAdolescent healthPhysical activityYouth studiesPsychologyAdolescent developmentDevelopmental psychologyYouth smokingYouth participationPublic healthPolitical scienceMedicinePublic relationsPhysical therapyNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has shown that adolescent females are less active compared to males leading to a call for increased physical activity programming for female youth (Bordersen et al., 2007). However, to date, research has not incorporated the voice of youth. According to the United Nations, youth have a right to participate in society and express their views about matters concerning their lives and future (Health Canada, 2001). The purpose of this research was to explore female adolescents’ experiences related to health and physical activity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with female youth from a local Boys and Girls Club. Four themes emerged from the data where youth provided insight as to how they perceive health, what prevents them from being active, what may motivate young females to be active, and ideas for new programming. These results have integrated into the development of a youth-led physical activity-based life skills program for female youth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex JournalSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207