Assessing user engagement in a health promotion website using social networking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Remote provision of supportive mechanisms for preventive health is a fast-growing area in eHealth. Web-based interventions have been suggested as an effective way to increase adoption and maintenance of healthy lifestyle behaviours. This paper describes results obtained in the "Walk 2.0" trial to promote physical activity through a self-managed walking programme, using a social networking website that provided an online collaborative environment. Engagement of participants with the website was assessed by monitoring usage of the individual social networking functions (e.g. status post). The results demonstrate that users generally preferred contributing non-interactive public posts of information concerned with their individual physical activity levels, and more occasionally communicating privately to friends. Further analysis of topics within posts was done by classifying word usage frequencies. Results indicated that the dominant topics are well aligned with the social environment within which physical activity takes place. Topics centred around four main areas: description of the activity, timing of the activity, affective response to the activity, and context within which the activity occurs. These findings suggest that strong levels of user awareness and communication occur in the social networking setting, indicative of beneficial self-image and self-actualisation effects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".