MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136791638 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daab035

“More than just another physical activity program”: exploring the GUM program for at-risk adolescent girls

2021· article· en· W3136791638 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole Hargreaves, Tanya Forneris, Catherine M. Sabiston, Stephen Berg, Kent C. Kowalski, Leah J. Ferguson, Cristina M. Caperchione

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychosocialThematic analysisPsychologyPhysical activityDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologyGerontologyQualitative researchMedicinePhysical therapyPsychotherapistSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity (PA) levels among adolescent girls continue to steadily decline, especially for those classified as 'at-risk'. To mitigate these trends, Girls United and on the Move (GUM) was created as a dual-component PA and psychosocial program. The primary purpose of this study was to explore participant experiences within GUM, with a secondary purpose of qualitatively informing future PA programs for 'at-risk' adolescent girls. Semi-structured interviews (N = 30) were conducted with a purposeful sample of girls from the GUM program. An inductive thematic analysis was utilized to analyze verbatim transcripts. Two themes were generated from the data: 1) Girls uplifting girls, outlining the importance of a girls-only environment and introducing opportunities for alternative PAs, and 2) finding balance between the physical and psychological, detailing the importance of the dual-component program. These findings provide support for the acceptability of an integrated psychosocial and PA program for at-risk adolescent girls.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.210
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207