MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911870351 · doi:10.31372/20180304.1019

The Use of Social Media and mEMA Technology in Comparing Compliance Rate Among Users

2018· article· en· W2911870351 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Reimund Serafica, Nada Lukkahatai, Brendan Morris, Kelly Webber

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas
KeywordsAttritionAttendanceIntervention (counseling)Compliance (psychology)Context (archaeology)Social mediaPsychologyApplied psychologyPhysical activityGerontologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPhysical therapyPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compliance can be defined as the extent to which a person's behavior corresponds with agreed recommendations. Within the context of lifestyle intervention, this may refer to physical activity, diet modifications, or lifestyle intervention program attendance or attrition. For lifestyle intervention programs to be successful (as measured against a variety of health and lifestyle markers), it is crucial for individuals to comply as best they can to the recommendations or instructions provided by the researchers. Those who disengage prematurely are likely to have poorer treatment outcomes. Hence, a better understanding and an added component, such as engagement, is vital to the development of successful compliance rates. Technology, such as the mobile-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (mEMA), has been used by researchers to collect data on participants through their smartphones. Studies have also used social media and mEMA in the past for topics such as chronic conditions, physical activity, weight management, and dietary behaviors. This article reports the results of two approaches to dietary monitoring using social media and mEMA technology and the lessons learned from the two studies for improving participant compliance.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian/Pacific Island Nursing JournalSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207