Correlates of Initial Recall of a Multimedia Communication Campaign to Promote Physical Activity among Tweens: the WIXX Campaign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined factors associated with children's and parents' recall of a communication campaign aimed at promoting children's physical activity. A cross-sectional population-based telephone survey was conducted among 1001 children and their parents. Respondents were recruited through a random digit dialing procedure. Respondents' recall of the campaign, beliefs, sociodemographics as well as levels of physical activity and sedentary behaviors were self-reported. Logistic regression analyses were conducted for tweens and their parents separately. Girls (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1; 95%confidence interval (CI): 1.3, 3.5) were more likely to have unaided recall when compared to boys. Tweens in primary school (OR = 1.9; 95%CI: 1.0, 3.4 and OR = 2.1; 95%CI: 1.4, 3.0) and those speaking French (OR = 3.3; 95%CI: 1.4, 8.1 and OR = 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8, 4.7) were more likely to have unaided and aided recall, respectively. Among parents, tweens' unaided (OR = 12.0; 95%CI: 5.2, 28.1) and aided (OR = 3.3; 95%CI: 1.5, 7.3) recall, obesity status (OR = 2.6; 95%CI: 1.3, 5.3), and low income (OR = 5.2; 95%CI: 1.9, 14.3) were positively associated with recall. Additional beliefs were associated with tweens' and parents' recall of the campaign. The association between sex, language, and recall is in line with the branding strategy adopted and no clear evidence for communication inequalities was observed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".