MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800563431 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.38.4.01

Exploring the impact of the ‘new’ ParticipACTION: overview and introduction of the special issue

2018· review· en· W2800563431 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Guy Faulkner, Lira Yun, Mark S. Tremblay, John C. Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPublic relationsPromotion (chess)Physical activityEmpirical examinationEmpirical evidencePopulationPsychologyPolitical scienceMarketingBusinessEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ParticipACTION is the Canadian physical activity communications and social marketing organization first launched in the fall of 1971 and then ceased operations in 2001. ParticipACTION was relaunched in 2007. Framed as a public health natural experiment, evidence was collected from a population-based survey of knowledge, awareness, understanding of physical activity, and physical activity levels among Canadians (individual level), and key informant surveys and interviews examining capacity, readiness and advocacy for physical activity promotion among physical activity organizations (organizational level). The purpose of this paper is to first provide an overview of some of the major initiatives undertaken by the 'new' ParticipACTION that may have contributed to any changes at these individual or organizational levels. Second, the paper sets the stage for the three empirical papers in this special series reporting follow-up results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.204
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207