MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2483584304 · doi:10.2196/mhealth.5193

The Era of Smartphones: Back to Our Biological Makeup?

2016· article· en· W2483584304 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alejandro Santos‐Lozano, Nuria Garatachea, Hélios Pareja-Galeano, Carmen Fiuza‐Luces, Fabián Sanchis‐Gomar, Alejandro Lucía

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternet privacyEnvironmental healthMedicineBusinessComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical inactivity is a major modifiable cardiovascular risk factor that has become a growing health problem in the 21st century: 83% of adolescents aged 13-15 years and approximately 1/3 of adults worldwide are inactive, that is, not meeting the minimum international physical activity (PA) recommendations (=150 minutes/week of moderate to vigorous PA) [1, 2]. Thus, the PA levels of the general population, especially of individuals at cardiovascular risk, should be routinely assessed by health care professionals, as it has been recently recommended by the American Heart Association [3]. To this end, accelerometers (usually attached to an elastic belt around the waist) allow objective quantification of PA by providing continuous recordings. At least 3 to 5 days of accelerometer monitoring (including weekend days) are required to determine habitual PA, and it is generally accepted that the device should be worn for =10 hours/day [4]. For this reason, the simple and inexpensive method of PA questionnaires is more widely used and generally better accepted. Unfortunately, the validity of self-reported PA is questionable...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.015
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicMobile Health and mHealth Applications→French-language works237,207→