Social Marketing Projects: A Novel Approach to Encourage Increasing Knowledge Around Obesity While Promoting Advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Educational strategies in regard to obesity should include initiatives that promote advocacy for social change, as well as sensitivity to individuals. Yet advocacy, like empathy, is a difficult concept to assess formally. Methods This resource describes how to establish a project for medical students designed to promote and assess their appreciation of the medical and psychosocial effects of obesity. Included are project descriptions and an evaluative tool that can be adapted to alternate populations or for local context. For the project, students design components of a public service campaign to change societal views on obesity and obese individuals, using whatever choice of medium they prefer (e.g., a jingle, song, poem, skit, or video). At the end of the week, presentations are made to the class and a panel of judges (two faculty members and two third-year medical students). The judges assess students' competency using evaluation criteria that take into consideration the message, presentation, and social-marketing plan. Results Students produced insightful projects that demonstrated sensitivity and an understanding of complex issues surrounding obesity within our society. Discussion Small-group projects framed as social marketing campaigns present an innovative strategy for assessing medical student competency in advocacy. Similar approaches could be adopted by other medical schools to assess advocacy as part of their obesity curricula or could potentially be applied to evaluate advocacy as it relates to the health of other marginalized populations or public health concerns.
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 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 | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".