“The Toronto Charter for Physical Activity: A Global Call for Action”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006 there the International Congress of Physical Activity and Public Health was held in Atlanta. Researchers and practitioners from around the world participating in that event agreed that there is the urgent need to undertake research on the role of physical activity in preventing diseases and there is a need to organize periodic congresses to present research results and exchange views in this area. The initiative met with great interest of researchers and the effect of that was a rapid progress in research in this field of science. During the Second International Congress of Physical Activity and Public Health in Amsterdam in 2008, there were presented the latest results related to the assessment of physical activity level, the recognition of sedentary behavior as distinct risk behaviors, as well as the role that various environments and policies play in forming human behavior. The same issues were major themes at the Third Congress of Physical Activity and Public Health in Toronto in 2010. The result of that congress was the adoption of the final document, which addresses the problem of lack of physical activity and the spread of sedentary lifestyle among all communities in the contemporary world. The papers discuss the essential bases and the process of ratification of that document as a basis for the promotion of physical activity in the different communities around the world. The document is called “The Toronto Charter for Physical Activity: A Global Call for Action”.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".