MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094126959 · doi:10.1109/wmute.2012.55

Towards Combating Youth Obesity with a Mobile Fitness Application

2012· article· en· W2094126959 on OpenAlexaff
Fletcher Lu, Jessica Welton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAction (physics)Physical fitnessPsychologyObesitySignificant differenceComputer scienceGerontologyMultimediaApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of the first phase in a multi-phase study developing an educational fitness application on mobile devices to help combat the growing levels of obesity among youth age 11 to 17. This first phase studies demographic differences across age and gender with regards to physical activities, computer games and mobile technology usage in order to develop an adaptive mobile fitness application that requires physical movement by the user while maintaining interest and enjoyment levels. Results indicate significant differences in gender in social activities versus action oriented type games but little difference in types of fitness activities. Across age groups there were some significant differences in terms of their interest in games involving strategy, action and violence. Also of note was that youth in the range of 14-15 tended to view physical activities as more difficult versus those both older and younger than them for the ages we studied. Youth also differed significantly in the type of mobile facilities they used with those older than 13 tending to use G.P.S., music and video facilities much more than those aged 11 to 13. These results have been incorporated into an initial prototype fitness application that will be tested on subjects in the next study phase.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207