Validation of the stair climbing function of the Fitbit One physical activity monitor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this research is to validate the stair climbing function of the Fitbit One (tri-axial accelerometer). Currently this is the only commercially available device that records and tracks the number of flights of stairs climbed by an individual. An objective measure of purposeful stair climbing will be a useful tool in future interventions that can focus on this behaviour. Methods: Participants. Sixty-six participants (n = 53 female, n = 13 male) were recruited from the University of Alberta. Procedure. A route was mapped out in a University of Alberta building. This route included two identical staircases each with an elevation of 20 ft. Each staircase represented two flights of stairs (based on 10 ft./flight). Participants walked up the two stair cases ten times each for a total of 20 flights of stairs. The output from the Fitbit One was recorded and compared to the actual flights climbed. Results: The internal consistency within the devices was high (α = .86). The percent agreement between the actual flights of stairs climbed and the number reported by the FitBit One was 92.4% with a range of values from 19-21. The absolute percent error was also calculated (APE = -0.23 ± 1.37) and found to be well under the acceptable level of error. Conclusion: The overall results of this study suggest that the Fitbit One is an accurate and reliable measure of purposeful stair climbing behaviour and is therefore suitable for use as an objective measure for use in stair climbing interventions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".