Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health programs incorporating physical activity components in office space work environments are encouraged to reduce sedentary/sitting down time that has recently been shown to be detrimental to employee health. PURPOSE: The aim of this pilot project is to compare energy expenditure of three methods to play dance active video games to reduce employee sedentary time and explore the possibilities and limitations to using this video game type as part of an employee based health program. METHODS: A total of 8 desk based worker participants (men, 26 ± 5 years) were recruited to perform 3 types of active video game dances using original instructions and a modification to allow individuals with limitations to play. The 3 dances were Party Rock Anthem, Land of 1000 Dances, and No limit (JustDance, Ubisoft, Montreal). The modifications were to play with a motion capture device (Kinect, Microsoft, USA), with a controller device (PSMove, Sony, Jp), and with a controller device in a sitting position (PSMove, Sony, Jp). The energy expenditure was measured by oxygen uptake using a portable metabolic analyser (K4b2, Cosmed, It) and the heart rate by a heart rate monitor (v800, Polar, Fi). RESULTS: The group average METS with Kinect vs PS vs sitting position during the Party Rock Anthem was 6.3±0.8, 5.5±1.2, and 3.0±0.8 METS (p<0.001). The group average METS on Kinect vs PS vs sitting position during Land of 1000 Dances was 7.4±1.6, 6.1±1.4, and 3.6±1.4 METS (p<0.001). Finally, the group average METS on Kinect vs PS vs sitting position during No limit was 6.8±1.3, 5.8±1.3, and 3.5 ± 1.1 METS (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Knowing that now these games are available using only a cell phone as a controller and a simple computer with internet, it seems feasible to use these video games to reach the minimum ACSM guidelines in a health program for an office company, even when modified for physically limited employees. However, a significant difference between the different types of play and individual needs must be considered in a workplace health program. Furthermore, additional research needs to be done to measure the impact of implementing physical active work breaks on personnel fitness changes and retention.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.506 | 0.233 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".