MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531709309

Proximal impact of Canada on the Move: the relationship of campaign awareness to pedometer ownership and use.

2006· article· en· W1531709309 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cora L. Craig, Sue E. Cragg, Catrine Tudor‐Locke, Adrian Bauman

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedometerOddsPromotion (chess)Health promotionPhysical activityRecallMedicineConfidence intervalOdds ratioPublic healthGerontologyDemographyEnvironmental healthPsychologyPhysical therapyPoliticsLogistic regressionPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Despite increased participation in leisure-time physical activity, inactivity remains an important public health problem. This study examines the immediate impact of the Canada on the Move initiative to promote walking through pedometer use among adult Canadians. METHODS: Data from a rolling monthly sample were collected via the Canadian Fitness and Lifestyle Research Institute's Physical Activity Monitor between November 2003 and September 2004. Prevalence rates were compared using Bonferroni-adjusted confidence intervals. Correlates of campaign recall and pedometer ownership were estimated using odds ratios adjusted for age, sex, income and education. RESULTS: Message recall and awareness as well as ownership and use of pedometers increased over the campaign and coincided with promotional activity. There was some evidence of a dose response between the number of messages recalled and pedometer use. DISCUSSION: The increased awareness and usage of pedometers among adult Canadians is encouraging; it indicates that these proximal targets are realistic and achievable for health promotion campaigns and contribute to opportunities for increasing physical activity behaviours.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations45
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207