MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073847531 · doi:10.1136/ebn.11.3.75

Review: use of pedometers increases physical activity in adultsCommentary

2008· letter· en· W2073847531 on OpenAlexaff
Lynnette Leeseberg Stamler

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2008
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityPsychologyMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D M Bravata Dr D M Bravata, Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford, CA, USA; dbravata@stanford.edu In adult outpatients, does the use of pedometers increase physical activity? Studies selected assessed pedometer use among >5 adult outpatients. Studies were excluded if participants were admitted to hospital or confined to a research centre, pedometers were sealed so that participants in the intervention group could not see the number of steps, or pedometers were used to measure the effects of a drug on a person’s ability to be physically active. Outcome was change in number of steps walked daily. Medline (to Feb 2007); EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Sport Discus, …

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.157
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207