University Students' Perspectives on a Physical Activity Record-Keeping Log
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored characteristics of a record-keeping log that students would find appealing and be receptive to using. A heterogeneous sample of undergraduate university students aged 18 to 25 years participated. An experienced moderator, using a semistructured interview guide, conducted 13 focus groups (N = 65). All focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive content analysis was conducted independently by two qualitative researchers. Measures were incorporated throughout the study to ensure data trustworthiness. Four themes illustrated students' suggestions for the log: layout, convenience, maximum distribution, and concerns. In particular, students discussed the use of a computer-based versus a paper-based log, hesitancies in using a log, and the need for: additional health information, multivenue distribution, and low to no cost. Students confirmed that a record-keeping log tailored to their needs and preferences would be attractive and appealing to students.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it