MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388442253 · doi:10.15280/jlm.2023.13.2.119

Gender and Physical Activity: What We Can Learn from The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion?

2023· review· en· W4388442253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Latifi, Fatemeh Estebsari, Mahmoud Abbasi, Marzeyeh Soleymani Nejad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lifestyle Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsCharterGovernment (linguistics)Promotion (chess)Physical activityDeclarationHealth promotionLegislationPolitical sciencePsychologyPublic relationsEnvironmental healthMedicineGerontologyPublic healthPoliticsNursingPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity is a modifiable risk factor for non-communicable disease. This study used the Ottawa Charter as a framework to explore responses for low physical activity caused by gender inequity. The researchers examined factors related to physical activity in women based on Ottawa Charter strategies. Promote the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of women about health issues, as well as work in socio-demographic factors as social support. The community level corresponds to the physical settings that affect physical activity. Lack of suitable places and facilities, absence of walking paths, neighborhood hazards, insufficient sports campaigns for women, shortage of government financial support for female athletes, and religious legislation in Islamic countries are the barriers to ensure physical activity in women. This review provides a comprehensive understanding of the relevant advantages of physical activity in women across the Ottawa Charter declaration.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Lifestyle Medicine→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→