Sustainability of the Dissemination of an Occupational Sun Protection Program in a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability of an occupational sun safety program, Go Sun Smart (GSS), was explored in a randomized trial, testing dissemination strategies at 68 U.S. and Canadian ski areas in 2004-2007. All ski areas received GSS from the National Ski Areas Association through a Basic Dissemination Strategy (BDS) using conference presentations and free materials. Half of the ski areas were randomly assigned to a theory-based Enhanced Dissemination Strategy (EDS) with personal contact supporting GSS use. GSS use was assessed at immediate and long-term follow-up posttests by on-site observation. Use of GSS declined from immediate (M = 6.24) to long-term follow-up (M = 4.72), F(1, 62) = 6.95, p = .01, but EDS ski areas (M = 6.53) continued to use GSS more than BDS ski areas (M = 4.49), F(1, 62) = 5.75, p = .02, regardless of timing of posttest, strategy × observation F(1, 60) = 0.05, p = .83. Despite declines over time, a group of ski areas had sustained high program use and active dissemination methods had sustained positive effects on implementation.
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 | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".