MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614936304 · doi:10.1177/2327857917061020

Developing Persuasive Health Messages for a Behavior-Change-Support-System That Promotes Physical Activity

2017· article· en· W2614936304 on OpenAlex
Leila Sadat Rezai, Jessie Chin, Rebecca Bassett‐Gunter, Catherine M. Burns

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersuasive technologyContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)PsychologyPersuasive communicationPersuasionBehavior changePrincipal (computer security)mHealthHealth communicationFocus groupIntervention (counseling)Computer scienceApplied psychologySocial psychologyPsychological interventionCommunicationComputer securityBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the first of three experiments conducted to investigate the efficacy of a proposed persuasive mHealth messaging intervention that motivates individuals to become more physically active. In order to develop a set of persuasive health messages that can be used in the principal experiment, which examines a particular message-tailoring strategy, we conducted an online survey through Amazon Mechanical Turk. In this online study participants rated a series of health messages to indicate each message’s level of persuasiveness, as well as the message’s focus. This study was essential, as disagreements exist on how to frame persuasive health messages in the context of promoting physical activity. Among the proposed 57 messages, 14 messages rated as the most persuasive were selected for the principal experiment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.688

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.258 · 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