Political orientation and public attributions for the causes and solutions of physical inactivity in Canada: Implications for policy support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To examine how public attributions for the causes and solutions of physical inactivity and individuals' self-identified political orientation are associated with support for different policy actions in addressing physical inactivity. Methods: A secondary data analysis was conducted with a sample of 2,044 Canadian adults. Two sets of 2 X 3 analyses of variance were conducted to assess (1) the mean differences by the causal attributions for physical inactivity and political orientation, and (2) responsibility for solutions and political orientation on support for least, moderate, and most intrusive policy actions. Results: No interaction effects existed between causal attribution and political orientation on policy support, but the main effect of causal attributions and political orientation was significant. Those who held internal causal attributions showed less support for policies compared to those who held external or both internal and external causal attributions. Conservative individuals reported the least support for all policy actions in comparison to liberals or centrists. There were interaction effects between responsibility for solutions and political orientation on policy support. Conservatives who perceived the responsibility for solving physical inactivity as a private matter had less support for all three policies. Conclusions: Public acceptance of policy actions addressing physical inactivity varies by the attributions the public have regarding causes and responsibility for solving the problem, and by political orientation. Advocacy and messaging for policy implementation in the physical activity arena need to be communicated in ways that encourage reflective and informed deliberation that is representative of the Canadian population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".