MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092288290 · doi:10.3148/68.3.2007.132

<i>Media Training for Diabetes Prevention:</i> A Participatory Evaluation

2007· article· en· W2092288290 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeffrey Lalonde, Zeinab Jeambey, Linda Jacobs Starkey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimelineMultidisciplinary approachMedical educationActive livingMedicineCitizen journalismPopulationPublic healthPsychologyGerontologyNursingEnvironmental healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Media and the Message - Promoting Healthy Eating and Active Living for Diabetes Prevention was a project aimed at raising awareness of diabetes risk factors and enhancing the public's access to credible, up-to-date, healthy eating and active living messages in the media. Cross-country workshops were held to teach media strategies and key diabetes prevention messages to multidisciplinary groups of health professionals. Evaluation was integral to the project; both the process and outcomes were assessed using Health Canada's Population Health Approach. Timeline and budget were tracked. Questionnaires were created to evaluate advisory committee conference calls and to determine participants' perceptions of the 19 workshops and resources. A pre-workshop/post-workshop and three-month follow-up questionnaire format, along with an online media-tracking tool, was used to collect outcome data and to measure changes in confidence and media behaviour. Sixty-three percent of participants (150 of 238) reported that multidisciplinary workshops were very valuable. Three-month follow-up revealed a significant increase in confidence in all media activities taught at the workshops, although this failed to translate into increased media activity. Sixty-eight percent (78 of 115) of responding participants disseminated workshop learning. Detailed evaluation revealed that multidisciplinary workshops are valued and effective in increasing confidence. However, eliciting behaviour change following a workshop remains a challenge.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.059
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.058
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0590.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.916
GPT teacher head0.765
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207