Awareness of ParticipACTION among Canadian adults: a seven-year cross-sectional follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this cross-sectional follow-up study, we explored Canadian's awareness of ParticipACTION and their levels of physical activity (PA) after seven years of campaigns. METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted with 7282 adults over a period of 14 months from February 2014 to May 2015. The survey consisted of questions on the 2014-2015 Physical Activity Monitor relating to awareness and knowledge of ParticipACTION. Weighted logistic models were constructed to examine whether awareness was associated with PA-related beliefs, intentions, and leisure time physical activity (LTPA). RESULTS: Approximately 20% of Canadians reported unprompted awareness of ParticipACTION and 82% reported prompted awareness. Education, income, and having children were significant correlates of awareness among Canadians. The adjusted odds of people being aware of ParticipACTION (prompted and unprompted) were greater if they were more educated (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.04-2.39; OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.24-3.24), reported higher income (OR = 3.92, 95% CI: 2.35-6.53; OR = 2.29, 95% CI: 1.44-3.62), and had children (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.40-2.66; OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.26-2.30). Furthermore, awareness of ParticipACTION was positively associated with outcome expectations and self-efficacy, and negatively associated with LTPA status. CONCLUSION: Levels of unprompted awareness of ParticipACTION are higher than previously reported and, in comparison to active Canadians, inactive Canadians are more likely to be aware of the organization. Given that it had primarily targeted parents of inactive children over the past seven years, it appears the organization has been partially effective in achieving its communication goals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".