Process evaluation of European 'Healthy Stadia' program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthy Stadia (HS) is a European public health pilot-program started in 2007 to support sports stadia in promoting the health of people who work and visit sports stadia, as well as inhabitants of the surrounding communities. The aim of this study is to describe the process evaluation of the program, from its beginning in July 2007 to December 2009, in order to assess the feasibility and sustainability of an HS network across Europe. The program involved nine associate partners involved in the coordination of activities at a local level, in the recruitment of stadia, in the development of specific program tasks and in the dissemination of the program at a national level. The activities of associate partners were evaluated through structured questionnaires administered every 6 months. The questionnaire response rate from associate partners was 77.8% for the first and third evaluations and 88.9% for the second and fourth evaluations. According to the evaluation's results, several good practices such as alcohol prevention policies and those supporting people with disabilities were implemented in stadia over the course of the program. Conversely, practices supporting mental health and green transport were generally not achieved. The implemented activities mainly involved staff and visitors. Lack of human and economic resources, especially toward the end of the program, was considered the principal challenge for program development. In conclusion, the process evaluation presented the feasibility of the HS program and the development of health promoting practices in sport stadia over time.
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 | 0.047 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".