MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887328665 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2863114

Multimedia for Social Good: Green Energy Donation for Healthier Societies

2018· article· en· W2887328665 on OpenAlexaff
Fedwa Laamarti, Abdulmotaleb El Saddik

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOverweightObesityLife styleEnergy (signal processing)Sedentary lifestyleGerontologyPsychologyPhysical activityDonationStyle (visual arts)MedicineApplied psychologyPhysical therapyPolitical scienceGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the world health organization, overweight and obesity are globally the fifth leading death factor, and the number of death in adults caused by overweight or obesity reaches 2.8 million every year. One of the main causes of overweight and obesity is the sedentary life style with non-existent or very little physical activity. The objective of this paper is to contribute a proposal of a motivational system to help sedentary individuals get physically active. We specifically tackle the sedentary life style enforced by watching TV for long periods of time daily. We suggest a model of an exercising system that encourages the collective production of green human energy, to be donated to poor countries. This system leverages people's drive for social good to boost their motivation to generate green energy by exercising. This green energy donation system also engages sedentary people in team competitions, while making a better use of the time spent watching TV every day. We designed and developed the proposed green energy donation system and conducted an experiment with a total of 11 participants. The findings are very promising as our evaluation shows that the participating subjects were highly motivated by this system to perform the recommended physical activity, with 75% them exceeding our expectation for exercise intensity and duration.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207