MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886842815 · doi:10.29102/clinhp.14004

Hospital Employees’ Experience with a Pedometer Challenge in a Health Promoting Hospital

2014· article· en· W2886842815 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Sounan, Mélanie Lavoie‐Tremblay, Geneviève L. Lavigne, Kara Martin, Guylaine Cyr

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Health Promotion - Research and Best Practice for patients staff and community · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsPedometerMedicineNursingMedical emergencyPsychologyBusinessPhysical therapyPhysical activity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

programme, can lead to short-term increases in steps walked daily by as much as 2,000 steps (9-10), lower blood pressure (9) and produce modest weight loss Kang and colleagues (10) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies that investigated the impact of pedometer-based physical activity interventions. Their results indicated a moderate and positive effect, suggesting that pedometers are indeed a useful tool for increasing physical activity levels.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.006
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.585
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Health Promotion - Research and Best Practice for patients staff and communitySame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207