INTERPRETATION OF PROCESSES IN DEVELOPING A NEW PROVINCIAL EDUCATION POLICY TO INCREASE STUDENT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Significant efforts have been made to address childhood obesity. Overtime we have realized obesity requires strong political leadership and population level interventions, considering there are many environmental factors contributing to obesity. Stakeholders in Manitoba have created a policy that in combination with other initiatives is attempting to increase physical activity and in turn combat the obesity epidemic. Therefore the objective of this study was to understand the complexities involved with developing an innovative policy. Results from this study would refine our understanding on how policy is enacted, provide information on the support for and resistance of policies for decision makers in the future, and contribute an historical record to Manitoba stakeholders. Mobilizing these context-specific findings will inform other Canadian provinces or jurisdictions on how to develop, integrate and implement a similar policy. \n \nMethods: This study employed a retrospective single case study design. Twelve participants were purposively selected from provincial and local-levels and invited to participate in a 45 minute semi-structured telephone interview examining the developmental processes involved in the Physical Education/Health Education policy. The data consisted of two sources. The primary sources consisted of 9 interview transcripts and the secondary sources consisted of several important documents that assisted filling in gaps pertaining to the policy. Qualitative analyses were separated into two parts. The first part identified common themes from the interview transcripts, and the second part organized the data into stages from an existing model for analysis. \n \nResults: The analysis identified several influential factors that facilitated moving the policy process forward. More specifically, the factors existing between the Policy Formulation and Implementation stages were critically analyzed revealing collaboration and on-going communication as important features for developing and implementing policies. The Stages Model proved to be relatively uninformative yielding minimal information to understanding the policy process. Therefore researchers should seek out additional theories or models in future research. \n \nConclusions: The findings from this research project have contributed valuable knowledge and insights. Lessons learned from this project will assist future decision makers on how to develop and implement a similar policy in another province or jurisdiction.
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 | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".