ACTIVE CITIES OF THE AMERICAS CONTEST
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the Americas, city officials have increasing influence over areas critical to physical activity (PA) promotion such as transportation, urban design, recreation, and crime control. PURPOSE As part of World Health Day, 2002, which was dedicated to PA promotion, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention co-sponsored an award to recognize outstanding cities throughout the Americas for efforts to create and maintain public spaces for safe recreation and active living. METHODS A 25-item survey was developed and administered in English and Spanish to assess programs, policies and access to public spaces that encourage PA. It was sent via electronic mail in Jan. '02 to country offices of PAHO, Ministries of Health & PA networks. Cities with a population of 15,000- 1,000,000 were considered between two regional categories: Latin America & the Caribbean; USA & Canada. 154 surveys were received from 142 eligible cities. RESULTS 96% (n = 136) of the applications were from Latin America. Median population of cities was 85,000. 35% (n = 49) had a sports oriented program to promote PA; 39% (n = 56) focused on activities such as biking and walking, while 15% (n = 22) focused on both. 49% (n = 70) reported that above two-thirds of children regularly walk to school. 73% (n = 104) regularly closed specific areas from motorists for the use of recreation. Of those, 70% (n = 73) had 1–2 days/week available for activities and 51% (n = 53) kept motorways opened for 4–8 hours/day. Of those who reported having a plan (n = 128) to improve public areas for recreation 42% (n = 54) provided complete documentation. Sources of funding for improvement projects were 39% (n = 50) municipal, 83% (n = 106) federal and 30% (n = 23) private. CONCLUSION Despite resource limitations in dissemination of the contest, response and participation from Latin America was high. While there appears to be awareness and interest in increasing access to public spaces for safe recreation and activity, less than half the communities had a plan for action. There remains a unique opportunity for multisectoral collaboration to promote active living and health cities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.019 |
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".