Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organizations and health resources or products with strong brands can augment interventions encouraging people to move more, sit less, and sleep better. This manuscript-based dissertation is composed of four studies that were designed with the purpose of enhancing our understanding of what makes a strong brand for promoting the full continuum of movement behaviours from sleep to vigorous physical activity. \nStudy 1 examined a physical activity organization brand to test the brand equity pyramid. Participants were a large, representative sample of Canadian adults. The analyses indicated that there was a five-factor brand equity framework (i.e., brand identity, brand meaning, brand responses, brand resonance, and intentions), and that each factor positively predicted the next. \nStudy 2 examined a product brand to test the brand equity pyramid. Participants were a representative sample of Canadian parents with a child 5-12 years of age. The study demonstrated a four-factor brand equity framework in this case (i.e., brand identity, brand meaning [performance beliefs and imagery beliefs], and brand resonance), and that brand identity predicted performance and imagery, and performance and imagery predicted resonance. \nStudy 3 also explored the brand of a product to test the brand equity pyramid. This study was an experiment comparing a brand intervention group to a control group. Participants in this study were similar in make-up to those in Study 2. Most importantly, the intervention group displayed a more positive attitude toward reducing their child’s sedentary behaviour and this effect was mediated by product credibility, warmth, and fun. \nFinally, Study 4 investigated determinants of attitude toward an organization’s promotion of a behaviour (i.e., brand extension attitude) to their child. Participants in this study were similar to individuals in Studies 2 and 3. The results generally indicated that participants were most amenable to the organization’s promotion of more light and moderate to vigorous physical activity, more sleep, and less sedentary behaviour when participants had a positive organizational attitude and when the participants perceived strong fit between the organization and the behaviour. \nThis dissertation demonstrated that branding matters in the promotion of optimal movement patterns. The results identify brand equity variables that organizations can target to enhance their interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".