Runners’ Perspectives on ‘Smart’ Wearable Technology and Its Use for Preventing Injury
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
Understanding the user experience between runners and wearable technology is crucial for designing personalized and effective wearable technology features for injury prevention. Therefore, the overall objective of this study was to understand the attitudes and beliefs for competitive and recreational runners towards wearable technology as well as its potential use for preventing injury. Survey data were drawn from 663 respondents. Competitive runners preferred GPS running watches and were interested in tracking personalized data to optimize running efficiency, whereas recreational runners used mobile phones/apps and wristband activity trackers to increase motivation. All runners believed that basic metrics found in wearable technology were most important for injury prevention; however, more advanced metrics had little importance. This paper illustrates the importance of understanding different user experiences for recreational and competitive runners in relation to wearable technology, and encourages the human-computer interaction research community to identify methods in personalizing complex running-related wearable technology data.
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 | 0.001 | 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