MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Behavior Design: Exploring Nontraditional Approaches to Change Physical Activity Behaviors and Improve Treatment Outcomes

2013· review· en· W1967951148 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Knight

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedentary behaviorPsychological interventionMedicinePhysical activityGerontologyQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationBehavior changeSedentary lifestylePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical inactivity is a preventable risk factor for many lifestyle-related chronic conditions and non-communicable diseases, and reducing physical inactivity represents a substantial opportunity for chronic disease prevention, healthcare cost savings, and improved quality of life. Physical activity guidelines recommend regularly engaging in moderate- and vigorous-intensity physical activities to elicit health benefits. Similarly, these higher-intensity ranges for physical activity are typically targeted in healthy living interventions. Comparatively, little attention has been focused to date on changing lower-intensity physical activity (i.e., sedentary activity) behaviors. Moreover, it has been proposed in the literature that intervening on sedentary behaviors may be a simpler approach for impacting population health. The purpose of this conceptual paper is to further the discussion that healthy living interventions should be developed to target sedentary behaviors. The physiological consequences of sedentary activity as well as behavior change models typically employed in the health landscape are discussed, and a behavior design model to target sedentary behavior in healthy living interventions is proposed.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.621
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Physical and Rehabilitation MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207