An Exploration of Municipal Active Living Charter Development and Advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Numerous municipal active living-related charters have been adopted to promote physical activity in Canada throughout the past decade. Despite this trend, there are few published critical examinations of the process through which charters are developed and used. Purpose: Thus, the purpose of this study was to establish greater understanding of active living charter development and advocacy. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight primary contributors to different active living-related charters across Ontario, Canada. Interview questions explored participants experiences developing and advocating for an active living charter. Interviews were analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding. Results and Conclusions: Participants consistently described a process whereby an impetus triggered the development of a charter, which was subsequently adopted by regional or municipal council. Continued advocacy to develop awareness of the charter and to promote desired outcomes in the community was valued and the capacity of the working group as well as the local political context played pivotal roles in determining how the charter was implemented. Outcomes were, however, rarely objectively evaluated a process that many participants thought was omitted in regard to their own charter. This work provides practical guidance for health professionals developing regional active living charters as a component of broader advocacy efforts.
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 | 0.059 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".