MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098341030 · doi:10.1177/1524839904263730

Development of an Ecological Assessment Tool for a Workplace Physical Activity Program Standard

2005· article· en· W2098341030 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Safety Research
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuditInter-rater reliabilityStakeholderWorkplace health promotionHealth promotionPsychologyReliability (semiconductor)Promotion (chess)Applied psychologyMedical educationMedicineNursingBusinessPublic healthPublic relationsRating scalePolitical scienceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project was undertaken to develop a Workplace Physical Activity Assessment Tool to evaluate workplace physical activity programs based on a standard of best practices indicated in the literature and by key stakeholders. The development of the Assessment Tool was structured on an ecological model for health and physical activity promotion and an occupational health and safety audit instrument. The project included a review and synthesis of pertinent literature, expert and stakeholder reviews, interrater reliability appraisals, and workplace consultations over three distinct study phases. The Assessment Tool was received positively by the expert reviewers (i.e., academics, policy makers, and practitioners) and revealed generally high interrater reliability. The Workplace Physical Activity Assessment Tool can be used to plan, implement, and evaluate physical activity programs in the workplace. Recommendations for future research are identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.606
Teacher spread0.427 · 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