Canada's Physical Activity Guide: Examining Print-Based Material for Motivating Physical Activity in the Workplace
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
The authors conducted a secondary analysis on 202 adults from the Physical Activity Workplace Study. The aim of this analysis was to examine demographic characteristics associated with reading Canada's Physical Activity Guide (CPAG), being motivated by the guide, and whether participants in the Physical Activity Workplace Study who read the CPAG increased their physical activity levels over 1 year. Results revealed that less than 50% of participants read the full version of CPAG, and less than 10% were motivated by it. The CPAG also appears to be more appealing to and effective for women than for men. Although the CPAG had some influence in increasing mild physical activity levels in a workplace sample, there was also a decrease in physical activity levels among some members of the group. Overall, the effectiveness of CPAG was not substantial, and the findings of this analysis could help guide future targeted intervention materials and programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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