MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011729915 · doi:10.1017/s0714980800012861

Anita M. Myers Program Evaluation for Exercise Leaders. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.

2001· article· fr· W2011729915 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInformation Technology and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesValuation (finance)Political scienceArtBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RÉSUMÉ Program Evaluation for Exercise Leaders constitue une ressource précieuse pour les moniteurs d'éducation physique qui ont besoin deprendre des décisions éclairées en regard du marché actuel. Le textes' applique aux clients âgés et fragiles de l'industrie du conditionnement physique et du secteur des services de récréation. On y trouve neuf exemples démontrant l'utilité de l'évaluation des programmes à l'égard d'une clientèle diversifiée. Au chapitre des forces de ce livre, citons son approche pratique échelonnée, ses illustrations, ses feuilles de travail qui contribuent à retenir l'attention du lecteur et enfin, l'inclusion de questions de sondage et d'instruments de qualité de vie. Le livre s'avère une ressource précieuse pour ceux qui dirigent des programmes d'exercice ou qui en ont la responsabilité.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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