Physical activity promotion in Sudbury-area call centres : employers' perspectives / by Sheila Joan Renton.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 2004 report from the Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health identified the workplace as a key setting for the implementation of strategies for the promotion of physical activity as part of a plan to help Ontarians achieve and maintain healthy weights (Chief Medical Officer of Health (Ontario), 2004). A concurrent, embedded mixed methods design was used to explore the responses of call centres employers within the City of Greater Sudbury to the Chief Medical Officer of Health?s recommendations, to develop an understanding of current practices in call centre workplaces that support physical activity, and to investigate employers? motivation to implement \nphysical activity promotion, as well as perceived facilitators and barriers. \nFace-to-face, semi-structured interviews and quantitative questionnaires were completed between February and July 2009 with fifteen managers in ten of the twelve call centres identified by the Growth and Development Department of the City of Greater Sudbury. \nResults provided insight into the employers? motivation to implement physical activity promotion initiatives as they relate to three particular themes: The Employer Reaps the Benefits, Concern for Employee Well-being, and a sense of The Greater Good. Several internal and external \nfacilitators for the promotion of physical activity were identified. Factors which create barriers to physical activity promotion within call centres were described by three themes: The Nature of Call Centre Work, Concerns of Managers, and Characteristics o f the Call Centre. \nThis study extends the research knowledge on the topic of physical activity promotion within call centres and leads to six recommendations for action at local and provincial levels which are expected to promote the health of call centre employees, and possibly other Ontario workers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".