Comparing the Influence of Dynamic and Static Versions of Media in Evaluating Physical-Activity-Promotion Ads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although social marketing promotion efforts are typically evaluated online using either finished video or static images, limited evidence exists whether media type influences audience response. In a posttest-only experimental study with a nationally representative sample of 663 Canadian mothers of 5- to 11-year-old children, participants were randomly assigned to one of two media conditions consisting of Think Again physical-activity Public Service Announcements created by ParticipACTION. Mothers reported campaign recall, ad liking, motivation to respond to the ad (i.e., assist one’s child to get at least 60 min of physical activity every day), and their support behaviors. Data were analyzed using χ 2 and independent samples t-tests. Those exposed to the video version of the ad in comparison to the static image reported higher message recall and liking, and motivation to respond. There were no differences in parental support behaviors. Social marketing promotion efforts should be evaluated using the same format as the media message originally used. The study concludes that media type influences findings when evaluating social marketing promotion campaigns.
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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".