MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6977510933 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5758122

The Physical Activity Messaging Framework (PAMF) and Checklist (PAMC): International consensus statement and user guide

2021· other· en· W6977510933 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDigital Games and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChecklistPhysical activityDelphi methodPlan (archaeology)DelphiQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Effective physical activity messaging plays an important role in the pathway towards changing physical activity behaviour at a population level. The Physical Activity Messaging Framework (PAMF) and Checklist (PAMC) are outputs from a recent modified Delphi study. This sought consensus from an international expert panel on how to aid the creation and evaluation of physical activity messages. In this paper, we (1) present an overview of the various concepts within the PAMF and PAMC, (2) discuss in detail how the PAMF and PAMC can be used to create physical activity messages, plan evaluation of messages, and aid understanding and categorisation of existing messages, and (3) highlight areas for future development and research. If adopted, we propose that the PAMF and PAMC could improve physical activity messaging practice by encouraging evidence-based and target population-focused messages with clearly stated aims and consideration of potential working pathways. They could also enhance the physical activity messaging research base by harmonising key messaging terminologies, improving quality of reporting, and aiding collation and synthesis of the evidence.

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)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.179
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.179
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.024

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicDigital Games and Media→French-language works237,207→