MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731951642 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.4903

“OUR FITBITS, OURSELVES?” WEARABLES, SELF-TRACKING AND AGING EMBODIMENT

2017· article· en· W2731951642 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Marshall

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWearable computerTracking (education)Key (lock)Psychological interventionPhysical activityEveryday lifePsychologyWearable technologyInternet privacySittingHuman–computer interactionApplied psychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyData scienceComputer securityPolitical scienceMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As physical activity is considered key to the prevention of many age-related problems and inactivity becomes framed as irresponsible (“sitting is the new smoking”), the market for devices to measure, monitor, motivate and manage activity has expanded. Translating bodily movement into quantifiable outputs, these devices produce data which can be used, shared and/or displayed in different ways, and which are bound up with discourses of risk and the management of future health. While biomedical and exercise science research focuses on how self-tracking devices can enhance behavioral interventions with older adults, I draw on interview data to explore the ways that data produced by self-tracking circulates through networks of technologies, relationships and expertise, and argue that more attention needs to be paid to the ways in which quantification is embedded in everyday social worlds.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207