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
Objective: Guidelines from a variety of jurisdictions for the health-promoting schools (HPS) approach include healthy school policy as a critical element. Research also supports the importance of policy; however, there seems to be a lack of information on how to develop and implement policy. The article examines the processes involved in one school division’s development and implementation of healthy school policy. Design: The study emerged from the Battle River Project, a multilevel partnership designed to explore the efficacy of implementing HPS at a school division level. The project intervention involved support for schools, a division-level steering committee, and a framework for implementation. Setting: The Battle River School Division is located in Alberta, Canada, and serves both rural and urban school communities. The study involved 21 of the 36 schools in the division and was initiated by the Ever Active Schools programme. Method: Development and implementation of policy and procedure were examined using case study methodology. Data gathered included interviews, focus groups, documents and observation. Results: Four primary themes were revealed through data analysis. Perceptions and misconceptions; bottom–up/top–down; flexible rigidity; and the way we do business. Conclusion: The process of developing and implementing healthy school policy can be streamlined by planning for clear communication, involving all stakeholders, and by embedding health into the structures of a school jurisdiction.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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