SMMP6 Cardiovascular Risk Modification in Two Regions of Ontario, Canada: How Does Place Matter?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Individuals at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) benefit from risk modification. However, many people struggle to change established lifestyle patterns. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine constraints and supports in the maintenance of behaviour change. Methods: We used qualitative methods to examine health-related experiences of 38 individuals who had received information about cardiovascular risk modification. Men and women were recruited from two regions of Ontario, Canada: a large metropolitan centre in the south of the province (20 participants) and a small city in the northern region (12 Anglophone, 6 Francophone participants). Focus groups were followed by photo-elicitation, wherein participants photographed everyday scenes or objects that influenced their cardiovascular risk modification. Then, individual interviews focused on the contextual and personal meanings represented in the photographs. Data analysis for each subgroup was conducted by separate teams. Interviews with Francophones were conducted and analysed in French. The analysis focused on the places or physical locations of everyday life, as well as activities that made these places meaningful.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".