MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7132894770

"What I wish you knew": Towards a sociology of physical activity in congenital heart disease (CHD): The social determinants of physical activity and health in youth with CHD and their health care professionals

2008· dissertation· W7132894770 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona J. Moola

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2008
Typedissertation
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart diseasePhysical activityContext (archaeology)Social determinants of healthHealth careSocial environmentQuality of life (healthcare)DiseasePhysical health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medical advances have increased survival for youth with congenital heart disease (CHD); the field of pediatric cardiology is concerned with enhancing quality of life in pediatric heart patients. Although physical activity is associated with numerous benefits, levels of participation remain low. Facilitated by the Labatt Family Heart Centre at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Canada, this study employed novel, child-centred methods in order to explore the impact of social determinants on the health and physical activity experiences of youth with CHD. Participants discussed numerous barriers in their "social lives and worlds" that have detracted from the attainment of optimal health and physical activity. Findings are discussed within the context of the existing research and recommendations are proposed. Social factors may mediate the relationship between CHD and reduced physical activity participation. As the "experts of their own illness experiences", youth with CHD direct the way to social 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→