Optimal messaging of the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18–64 years and Adults aged 65 years and older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18–64 years and Adults aged 65 years and older (“Guidelines”) integrate recommendations for physical activity, sedentary, and sleep behaviours. Given the novelty of these integrated Guidelines, it was important to consider messaging strategies that would be most effective in reaching Canadian adults. The purpose of this study was to examine optimal messaging of the Guidelines as it pertains to communication channels and messages. Representative samples of Guideline end-users (N = 1017) and stakeholders (N = 877) each completed a cross-sectional survey. Descriptive statistics were calculated along with tests of statistical significance. Inductive content analysis was used to code stakeholders’ comments (i.e., suggestions, concerns) on a draft version of the Guidelines. Most end-users had recently referred to online medical resources; family, friends, and co-workers; and physicians as communication channels for information regarding the movement behaviours. End-users and stakeholders felt that generic messages would foster self-efficacy to meet the Guidelines. Stakeholders highlighted a variety of considerations to ensure the Guidelines are inclusive towards diverse groups within the Canadian population. Findings will inform Guideline messaging. Novelty Most end-users referred to online medical resources; family, friends, and co-workers; and physicians as communication channels. End-users and stakeholders indicated that generic messages would foster self-efficacy to meet the Guidelines. Stakeholders expressed concerns about the inclusivity of the Guidelines for diverse socioeconomic 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".