Partnering With Libraries to Promote Walking Among Community-Dwelling Adults: A Kingston Gets Active Pilot Pedometer-Lending Project
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
Most adults do not walk enough to obtain health benefits. Pedometers have been successfully utilized to motivate and increase walking. Given that libraries are a place where community members seek health resources, they are a logical setting for increasing community accessibility to pedometers. The purpose was to examine the feasibility of lending pedometers to library patrons to increase walking. In five Canadian public libraries, 90 pedometers were made available for 6 months. A total of 41 library patrons (33 women, 8 men, age range 18 to 65 or older) completed a survey about their walking patterns and pedometer use. More than 330 loans were made. Chisquare analysis found significant associations between walking and motivation to walk more (p < .05), walking and goal setting (p < .05), and motivation to walk more and setting a walking goal (p < .001). Results provide preliminary evidence that lending pedometers through local libraries is an effective, low-cost approach to enhance walking in community members.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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