<i>Step on up!</i> A multi-component health promotion intervention to promote stair climbing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To study the influence of a multi-component poster-based intervention to promote stair climbing in a library on a Canadian university campus. Participants: Adults who ascended to upper levels via staircase/elevator. Methods: Individuals who used the staircase/elevators were counted by observers for 28 days, while either in the absence/presence of a poster-based intervention. Chi-square tests were used to compare staircase versus elevator use before, during and after the poster-based intervention. Data from weekdays and weekends were analysed separately. Results: A total of 7,663 stair climbers and elevator users were observed. Compared to the baseline period, the frequency of staircase use on weekdays was significantly higher during the intervention and follow-up periods. This effect was not found at weekends. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that a multi-component poster-based intervention can result in increased staircase use. The increase observed in this study is similar to that in previous research using point-of-choice prompts only.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".