MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6925284026 · doi:10.17605/osf.io/4z7vr

Exploring multisectoral partnerships in the promotion of health, physical literacy, and physical activity in school contexts: A scoping review protocol

2023· article· en· W6925284026 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Science Framework · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Physics and Python Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Protocol (science)Identification (biology)Physical activityHealth promotion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A scoping review protocol to explore, identify, and map the key concepts of established areas of research, emerging trends and the identification of gaps in the knowledge related to What is known about multisectoral partnerships in the promotion of health, physical literacy, and physical activity in schools? This identification will guide future research and the development of policies and practices that may support multisectoral partnerships and enhance their success in promoting PL and PA within schools.

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)0.202
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.209
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2020.209
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.014
Bibliometrics0.0240.021
Science and technology studies0.0080.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.009
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0140.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.011

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 head0.275
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Science FrameworkSame topicComputational Physics and Python ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207