Physical activity promotion in call centres: employers' perspectives
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
This study followed a predominantly qualitative approach to explore the perspectives of employers in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, call centres (CCs) regarding physical activity (PA) promotion in workplaces, by identifying current practices and employers' motivation to promote PA, as well as perceived facilitators and barriers. In-depth interviews were conducted with 15 managers in 10 of 12 local CCs and questionnaires were used to collect quantitative information about participants and their workplaces. Thematic analysis revealed that participants' responses to recommendations for PA promotion were generally positive and some CCs were engaged in some PA initiatives. Employers' motivations to promote PA included direct benefits to the employer, concern for employee well-being and the greater good. Barriers to PA promotion within CCs included the nature of CC work, managers' concerns regarding participation, fairness and cost and special limitations of the workspace. Results indicate additional actions and supports are required to facilitate implementation of PA in CCs according to governmental recommendations. Efforts are required to increase awareness and use of existing resources. Smaller organizations may require more assistance to promote PA than those with a larger number of employees and may benefit from enhanced interaction with existing networks and public health programs and resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it