Validity of the Actical Accelerometer Step-Count Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the validity of the new Actical accelerometer step count function. METHODS: Actical step counts were compared according to two criterion standards. 1) Eight Acticals were assessed using a mechanical shaker table under six different testing conditions. 2) Thirty-eight volunteers (aged 9-59 yr) wore eight Acticals and eight Actigraphs during treadmill walking (50 and 83 m.min(-1)) and running (133 m.min(-1)) for 6 min at each speed. Steps were counted during the second and fourth minutes of each speed by a trained observer. RESULTS: The correlation between Actical step counts and the mechanical shaker step counts was excellent (r = 1.0). Compared with visually counted steps, both the Actical and Actigraph step counts were significantly different at 50 m.min(-1); however, no significant differences were evident at 83 and 133 m.min(-1). The criterion-related validity correlations (r) for the Actical and Actigraph, respectively, were 0.73 and 0.52 at the slow walk condition and 0.99 and 0.99 at the normal walk and run conditions. CONCLUSION: The new step count function of the Actical accelerometer provides valid estimates of step counts at 83 and 133 m.min(-1) on a range of healthy participants.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".