MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7074000547

A men's workplace health intervention: Results of the POWERPLAY program pilot study

2016· article· en· W7074000547 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Bank (Australian Catholic University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research Institute
KeywordsWorkplace health promotionHealth promotionPhysical activityInterviewMotivational interviewingPromotion (chess)Baseline (sea)Telephone interviewOffice workers
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To explore physical activity and eating behaviors among men following the implementation of a gender-sensitive, workplace health promotion program. Methods: Using a pre-post within-subjects design, computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) was used to collect health-related information along with physical activity and fruit/vegetable intake at baseline and after 6 months. Results: At baseline, participants (N = 139) consumed 3.58 servings of fruit and vegetables/day and engaged in an average of 229.77 min/week moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). At 6 months, daily fruit/vegetable intake did not increase, whereas MVPA increased by 112.3 min/week. Conclusions: The POWERPLAY program successfully increased weekly MVPA. Engaging men in health promotion can be a challenge; here, the workplace served as a valuable environment for achieving positive change.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Bank (Australian Catholic University)Same topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207