Tracking feels oppressive and ‘punishy’: Exploring the costs and benefits of self-monitoring for health and wellness
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-monitoring is the cornerstone of many health and wellness persuasive interventions. However, applications designed to promote health and wellness that use this strategy have recorded varying degrees of success. In this study, we investigated why the self-monitoring strategy might work in some contexts and fail in others. We conducted a series of large-scale studies, with a total of 1768 participants, to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the self-monitoring strategy. Our results uncover important strengths and weaknesses that could facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of self-monitoring to promote the health and wellness of its users. The strengths include its tendency to reveal problem behaviours, provide real and concrete information, foster reflection, make people accept responsibility, create awareness and raise users’ consciousness about their health and wellness. Some of the weaknesses include its tendency to provoke health disorder, be tedious and boring. We contribute to the digital health community by offering design guidelines for operationalising self-monitoring to overcome its weaknesses and amplify its strengths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it