A practical guidance for assessments of sedentary behavior at work: A PEROSH initiative
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
Sedentary behavior is defined as sitting or lying with low energy expenditure. Humans in industrialized societies spend an increasing amount of time in sedentary behaviors every day. This has been associated with detrimental health outcomes. Despite a growing interest in the health effects of sedentary behavior at work, associations remain unclear, plausibly due to poor and diverse methods for assessing sedentary behavior. Thus, good practice guidance for researchers and practitioners on how to assess occupational sedentary behavior are needed. The aim of this paper is to provide a practical guidance for practitioners and researchers on how to assess occupational sedentary behavior. Ambulatory systems for use in field applications (wearables) are a promising approach for sedentary behavior assessment. Many different small-size consumer wearables, with long battery life and high data storage capacity are commercially available today. However, no stand-alone commercial system is able to assess sedentary behavior in accordance with its definition. The present paper offers decision support for practitioners and researchers in selecting wearables and data collection strategies for their purpose of study on sedentary behavior. Valid and reliable assessment of occupational sedentary behavior is currently not easy. Several aspects need to be considered in the decision process on how to assess sedentary behavior. There is a need for development of a cheap and easily useable wearable for assessment of occupational sedentary behavior by researchers and practitioners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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