Advocacy for physical activity-from to influence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advocacy is an evolving and underdeveloped element of public health practice. Historically, it was used to describe activities undertaken by persons on behalf of the poor, the sick or oppressed. In the seventies, led by tobacco control advocates such as Pertschuk in the United States, Gray in Australia and Daube in the United Kingdom, public health advocacy became more focused on structural and policy change. Since the Ottawa Charter (WHO, 1986), the health promotion movement has embraced a broader view of the role of advocacy. The public health community now see advocacy as social action primarily aimed at effecting changes in legislation, policy and environments that support healthy living. Advocacy is defined by the World Health Organization as a combination of individual and social actions designed to gain political commitment, policy support, social acceptance and systems support for a particular health goal or programme (WHO, 1995). This paper describes a model for understanding and mobilising physical activity advocacy. It outlines a three step process: 1. Gathering and translating the most pertinent physical activity evidence. Why advocate for physical activity? 2. Developing from the evidence, a physical activity advocacy agenda and articulating a plan (or plans) of key actions that will increase population levels of physical activity. What should be advocated? 3. Implementing a mix of advocacy strategies to influence and mobilise support for the physical activity agenda. How should advocacy be implemented?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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 it