MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914187707 · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2019.100828

Way2Go! Social marketing for girls' active transportation to school

2019· article· en· W2914187707 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Claire Sauvage-Mar, Patti‐Jean Naylor, Joan Higgins, Helen VonBuchholz

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Medicine Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaIsland HealthUniversity of Victoria
FundersUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsMarket segmentationFocus groupThematic analysisSocial marketingHealth promotionPsychologyPromotion (chess)Public healthTarget audienceMedical educationAdvertisingProduct (mathematics)Public relationsMedicineMarketingSociologyQualitative researchNursingBusinessPolitical scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active transportation to school (ATS) is a recognized way to increase physical activity (PA). However, girls and young women do not regularly use ATS despite the many documented physical, mental, and community health benefits. Social Marketing (SM) may provide a framework for understanding girls' perspectives of and experience with ATS and inform messages for use in a public health marketing campaign. Focus groups with 79 girls between the ages of 7 and 15 were conducted in Spring 2017 in Victoria, Canada. Transcripts and poster data were initially categorized using the '4Ps' from social marking (Product, Price, Place and Promotion). Participant groups were segmented into three age categories for designing tailored messaging. Thematic analysis revealed elementary school aged participants identified health and fun while middle school participants valued socializing and helping the environment as reasons for engaging in ATS. For secondary school students, ATS was seen as a way to become more independent. All three highlighted fun and enjoyment as important benefits of ATS, and suggested positive and lighthearted messaging. Segmenting into different audiences highlighted how campaign segmentation would resonate with different audiences based on core values and beliefs. Further segmentation of the audience could result in different core values and beliefs held by diverse groups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Medicine ReportsSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207