Examining community organizations' capacity to disseminate evidence-based physical activity promotion initiatives for people with spinal cord injury
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To estimate the potential for systematically promoting physical activity (PA) in the spinal cord injury (SCI) population, we examined the capacity of community organizations in a large Canadian province to implement PA promotion initiatives. Representatives from 23 community PA (n=7), sports (n=8) and advocacy (n=8) organizations for people with disabilities completed a community capacity questionnaire and a follow-up telephone interview. Organizations' strategic priorities and available resources for promoting PA were obtained. Descriptive statistics for questionnaire data and recurring themes from participants' interview responses were analyzed. While 96% of organizations valued PA, only 65% had a strategic priority to promote PA. The majority (>73%) were willing to integrate PA promotion into current services (e.g., peer support programs) or link with other organizations already promoting PA (e.g., post a website ad). However, their capacity was limited; 40% indicated needing resources to foster PA promotion. Capacity building at multiple levels is needed for successful dissemination of evidence-based PA promotion initiatives for people with SCI.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it