Lesson Learned from Collecting Quantified Self Information via Mobile and Wearable Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ubiquity and affordability of mobile and wearable devices has enabled us to continually and digitally record our daily life activities. Consequently, we are seeing the growth of data collection experiments in several scientific disciplines. Although these have yielded promising results, mobile and wearable data collection experiments are often restricted to a specific configuration that has been designed for a unique study goal. These approaches do not address all the real-world challenges of “continuous data collection” systems. As a result, there have been few discussions or reports about such issues that are faced when “implementing these platforms” in a practical situation. To address this, we have summarized our technical and user-centric findings from three lifelogging and Quantified Self data collection studies, which we have conducted in real-world settings, for both smartphones and smartwatches. In addition to (i) privacy and (ii) battery related issues; based on our findings we recommend further works to consider (iii) implementing multivariate reflection of the data; (iv) resolving the uncertainty and data loss; and (v) consider to minimize the manual intervention required by users. These findings have provided insights that can be used as a guideline for further Quantified Self or lifelogging studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
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".