Evaluating the quality and accuracy of online physical activity resources for individuals living with osteoporosis
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
The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the quality and accuracy of online physical activity (PA) information for individuals living with osteoporosis. Using a systematic review protocol and guided by previous synthesis research, 57 websites were included in this study. Two independent coders evaluated each website by extracting data pertinent to descriptive characteristics, technical quality, and accuracy of PA information. While most websites presented information regarding aerobic (94.47%) and resistance (89.47%) PA, rarely was information presented consistent with public health recommendations for PA in older adults or recommendations advanced by Giangregorio et al. (2014). Considerably less information was devoted to balance or flexibility forms of activity. Most websites included information on the benefits (94.40%) and safety considerations (72.20%) for PA for individuals living with osteoporosis. Other cognitive or behavioral aspects linked to PA were less common features of coded websites. Greater attention to public health guidelines or evidence-informed recommendations when developing websites to encourage individuals living with osteoporosis to adopt PA is recommended.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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