MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102275999 · doi:10.18276/cej.2020.3-06

Tracking daily steps: an investigation on a small post-secondary campus

2020· article· en· W3102275999 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brent Bradford, Adam Howorko, Erinn Jacula, Jason Daniels, Shaelyn Hunt, Nicole Correia

Bibliographic record

VenueCentral European Journal of Sport Sciences and Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsConcordia University of Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoodTracking (education)Physical activitySerotoninDepression (economics)PsychologyMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyPhysical therapyInternal medicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of mood-regulating chemicals (e.g. serotonin) may be impacted through prolonged or acute stress events. If a serotonin-deficit exists, depression-related illnesses may result, with such illnesses projected to become the second highest lifetime burden of disease. Critically, physical activity has been found to assist in increasing serotonin levels, positively impacting adult neurogenesis and mood. The purpose of this study was to track daily steps (physical activity) employing a step-counting technology across a small Canadian university. Guided by the research questions: Can tracking daily steps encourage elevated levels of physical activity? and What differences, if any, exist between physical activity levels amongst students and faculty/staff?, such an understanding may add to the current body of knowledge concerning physical activity levels in educational institutions. Over a 9-week period, students (n = 32) took significantly more steps than faculty/staff (n = 16), and significantly more in Week 9 than in Week 2.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.625

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentral European Journal of Sport Sciences and MedicineSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207