MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2988039603 · doi:10.70252/onjf5135

Validation of Practical Tools to Identify Walking Cadence to Reach Moderate Intensity

2019· article· en· W2988039603 on OpenAlexaff
Spencer Smith, Matthew A Short, Martin Sénéchal, Danielle R. B̀ouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of exercise science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadencePedometerTreadmillPreferred walking speedPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPower walkingVentilatory thresholdIntensity (physics)GaitPhysical therapyMedicineSimulationComputer sciencePhysical activityVO2 maxHeart ratePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International Journal of Exercise Science 12(4): 1244-1253, 2019. It is recommended that adults get at minimum 150 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in bouts of 10 minutes or greaterevery week. Walking cadence (steps per minute) is one easy way to estimate intensity required, however tools that claim to quantify walking intensity via walking cadence have not been validated in adults. We aimed to validate: 1- the accuracy of walking cadence measurement by the Piezo RxD pedometer, Polar Stride Sensor Bluetooth Smart foot pod, and Garmin Ant+ foot pod at different speeds and slopes and 2- the ability of the Piezo RxD to identify bouts of walking at moderate intensity using walking cadence. Inclusion criteria included being aged 19+ and the ability to reach moderate intensity when walking without incline as determined by a treadmill cardiorespiratory fitness test to determine 40% of VO2reserve. Walking cadence measured from the three tools was compared to a manual count of walking cadence during a series of walking stages at several speeds (2.5-5.5 km/h) and inclines (0-15%). The ability of the Piezo RxD to quantify a 10-minute bout was determined by walking for 12 minutes at 40% of VO2reserve measured by indirect calorimetry. All correlations between manual walking cadence counts and all devices were significant regardless of speed (r ranging from 0.469 to 0.999; p£0.05) and slope (r ranging from 0.887 to 0.996; p£0.05). The Piezo RxD was able to correctly measure a 10-minute bout of walking at moderate intensity for 50 of 51 participants. We found that all walking cadence devices provided accurate measurements of walking cadence. The Piezo RxD is an effective tool to quantify bouts of walking done at a minimum of moderate intensity.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of exercise scienceSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207