COMPARISON OF A STEP-COUNTER PROGRAM VERSES A TIME-BASED PHYSICAL ACTIVITY PROGRAM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the fitness and health benefits of the Canadian Physical Activity Guide Program (CPAGP) to that of a Digi-Walker Step Counter Program (DSCP). Fourteen males and twenty females, mean age (± SD) 42 ± 9.5 yrs., formed the control (CG, n = 6) and experimental (DSCP, n = 14: CPAG, n = 14) groups. The CPAG group followed the CPAGP timed-based physical activity blueprint that suggests incorporating physical activity into everyday life (accumulate 30 - 60 min., moderate intensity most days of the week) for eight weeks. The DSCP group followed the recommended behavioral target of 10,000 steps per day for eight weeks. Baseline measures of age, weight, aerobic fitness, blood pressure resting, resting HR and body composition were not significantly different (p > 0.05) for the three groups. The DSCP group showed significant improvements (P < 0.05) in weight, aerobic fitness, blood pressure, resting HR and body composition, whereas the CPAG group showed significant improvements (P < 0.05) in aerobic fitness and resting HR. The DSCP group showed an 85.7 percent adherence rate to the program verses a 57.1percent adherence rate for the CPAG group. In conclusion, DSCP (step-counter) group showed a greater improvement in fitness and health benefits and adherence to the physical activity program than the CPAG (timebased) group. A step-counter may help motivate an individual to maintain a regular physical activity program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".