MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252975523 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(19)30135-5

Time to tackle the physical activity gender gap

2019· letter· en· W4252975523 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
The Lancet Public Health

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsFootballPublic healthQuarter (Canadian coin)PopulationPsychologyLeagueMental healthAffect (linguistics)GerontologyMedicinePolitical scienceEnvironmental healthGeographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2019 might well be the year of women's sport. While coverage has long been overshadowed by the male leagues, viewing opportunities and public engagement has been growing. Public excitement perhaps peaked during the Women's Football World Cup, with television audiences across the world increased by millions on previous years. As female athletes challenge inequalities over pay and investment and shift social expectations, could their example be used to tackle the gender gap in physical activity in the wider 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0560.050
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.017

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 head0.226
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations171
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207