Pedometers as Measurement Tools and Motivational Devices: New Insights for Researchers and Practitioners
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
Pedometers are increasingly used in physical activity research and health promotion initiatives. This pilot study examines the efficacy of pedometers as motivational tools for increasing daily physical activity and exploring the practical issues related to pedometer use in research and intervention studies. A mixed-method design is used to collect data on the level of activity and in-depth information about participants' experiences wearing the pedometers. Participants are 10 midlife women between the ages of 45 and 64 (mean age = 52.9). Analysis indicates pedometers function as important motivational tools for increasing daily physical activity and improving the awareness of activity patterns for participants. Findings provide new insights into participants' experiences using the pedometers and understanding how these devices function as research tools. Several important methodological considerations for future research and intervention designs using pedometers are discussed.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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