Promoting Participation: Evaluation of a Health Promotion Program for Low Income Seniors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a qualitative evaluation of the Seniors Active Living in Vulnerable Elders (ALIVE) program, a 10-month health promotion program for low income seniors. Program interventions delivered in seniors' apartment buildings included exercise classes, health information sessions (i.e., health corners), and newsletters. The evaluation examined program participation, program impacts, and how the program worked. The most frequent reason for joining the program was recognizing the benefits of exercise, and the most frequent reason for not attending the program was having other priorities. The main participant impact was "feeling better." Specific impacts were also noted in physical, mental, and social domains. Fun, program delivery adaptations, autonomy, social interactions, and staff-participant relationships were discovered to be important program processes. These processes all contributed to participant's "comfort" in the program. How and why the program worked is examined in relation to Pender's (1996) revised health promotion model and implications for nursing are indicated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.074 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it