MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113174923 · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2014.11.020

Factors contributing to the effectiveness of physical activity counselling in primary care: A realist systematic review

2014· review· en· W2113174923 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna R. Gagliardi, Guy Faulkner, Donna Ciliska, Audrey L. Hicks

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Education and Counseling · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsycINFOObservational studyMedicineMEDLINEOperationalizationPsychological interventionSystematic reviewCochrane LibraryFamily medicineIntervention (counseling)Primary careRandomized controlled trialCINAHLPhysical therapyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.323 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePatient Education and CounselingSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207