ParticipACTION: Overview and introduction of baseline research on the "new" ParticipACTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This paper provides a brief overview of the Canadian physical activity communications and social marketing organization "ParticipACTION"; introduces the "new" ParticipACTION; describes the research process leading to the collection of baseline data on the new ParticipACTION; and outlines the accompanying series of papers in the supplement presenting the detailed baseline data. METHODS: Information on ParticipACTION was gathered from close personal involvement with the organization, from interviews and meetings with key leaders of the organization, from published literature and from ParticipACTION archives. In 2001, after nearly 30 years of operation, ParticipACTION ceased operations because of inadequate funding. In February 2007 the organization was officially resurrected and the launch of the first mass media campaign of the "new" ParticipACTION occurred in October 2007. The six-year absence of ParticipACTION, or any equivalent substitute, provided a unique opportunity to examine the impact of a national physical activity social marketing organization on important individual and organizational level indicators of success. A rapid response research team was established in January 2007 to exploit this natural intervention research opportunity. RESULTS: The research team was successful in obtaining funding through the new Canadian Institutes of Health Research Intervention Research (Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention) Funding Program. Data were collected on individuals and organizations prior to the complete implementation of the first mass media campaign of the new ParticipACTION. CONCLUSION: Rapid response research and funding mechanisms facilitated the collection of baseline information on the new ParticipACTION. These data will allow for comprehensive assessments of future initiatives of ParticipACTION.
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 | 0.156 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".