The health promoting sports club in Finland--a challenge for the settings-based approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is, first, to compile a frame of reference for the health promoting sports club and, second, to develop standards for the concept. This concept is based on the settings-based health promotion approach. Sports clubs are a new setting for health promotion, which until now has been little examined from a settings point of view. Nevertheless, this concept has much potential. For example, sports clubs attract a large number of children and adolescents and their educational nature can be considered to be informal. The present standards were developed using the Delphi method. The researcher, in cooperation with a panel of experts (experts in health promotion, n = 11, and experts in sports clubs, n = 16), sought to create a consensus statement on the standards. At the preliminary stage of the study 64 original standards were created on the basis of existing literature and the principles of the Ottawa Charter. During the three rounds of the Delphi process 15 standards were evaluated as the most important. After the Delphi process, the researcher modified the standards by eliminating overlap, interpolating seven standards to involve all strategic areas of the Ottawa Charter and creating a preliminary typology of the standards. At the subsequent stages of the study, indicators for these standards will be drafted and tested in practice. Therefore, this study would provide tools for determining and evaluating how health promoting a particular sports club is.
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 | 0.050 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".