Additional file 1 of Evaluating the scaling up of an effective implementation intervention (PACE) to increase the delivery of a mandatory physical activity policy in primary schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Results from sensitivity analysis of linear mixed models illustrating differences in minutes of physical activity scheduled by teachers from baseline compared to 12-month follow-up for only those schools contributing valid data for both baseline and follow-up. *Adjusted for: school factors: type (i.e. government, Catholic, independent), geographical location and socioeconomic disadvantage classification; teacher factors: sex, employment status, years of teaching experience and whether they job share. aDoes not include random slope for time to ensure model fit. bNumber of schools = 69; number of teachers with valid data for unadjusted model = 601; number of teachers with valid data for adjusted model = 534. cNumber of schools = 68; number of teachers with valid data for unadjusted model = 372; number of teachers with valid data for adjusted model = 365. Supplementary Table 2. Results from sensitivity analysis of linear mixed models illustrating differences in minutes of physical activity scheduled by teachers from baseline compared to 12-month follow-up also controlling for region. *Adjusted for: school factors: type (i.e. government, Catholic, independent), geographical location and socioeconomic disadvantage classification; teacher factors: sex, employment status, years of teaching experience and whether they job share and region. aNumber of schools = 88; number of teachers = 591. bNumber of schools = 85; number of teachers = 397
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.855 | 0.076 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".