Reply to the Discussion of “Letter to the Editor: Standardized use of the terms sedentary and sedentary behaviours” — Sitting and reclining are different states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I thank Dr. Viir and Dr. Veraksits for their interest in sedentary behaviours and for their letter. The Sedentary Behaviour Research Network (SBRN) is an emerging international network of individual members who are interested in research, leadership, education, and advocacy related to the consequences and possible benefits of sedentary behaviour. The mission of SBRN is to advance our understanding of the implications of sedentary behaviours through research, education, and advocacy. One of the greatest barriers to progress toward this mission is the inconsistent definition of “sedentary behaviour” as discussed in our earlier letter (Sedentary Behaviour Research Network 2012). I appreciate the concerns expressed by Drs. Viir and Veraksits. They raise an important point regarding the effects of gravity on physiological functions while in different postures. Furthermore, nuances on how to define “reclining” are raised. The proposal by SBRN that sedentary behaviour be defined as any waking behaviour characterized by an energy expenditure 1.5 METs while in a sitting or reclining posture does not disregard the potential importance of gravity or other mechanical (e.g., pressure on tissues of contact points from sitting or type of clothing being worn) or environmental (e.g., indoor vs. outdoor) factors that may provoke, mediate, or moderate physiological or even cognitive functions. Nor does the definition preclude the study of sedentary behaviours such that perhaps a whole “family” of sedentary behaviour subcategories may emerge based on their physiological influence. The fact that this discussion is occurring is evidence that our earlier letter is achieving its objective and that the mission of SBRN is being successfully pursued. Thanks and please keep the discussion going!
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 | 0.008 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".