MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135074739 · doi:10.3390/nursrep11010014

Technology-Enhanced Health Promotion for College Students: A Seed Development Project

2021· article· en· W3135074739 on OpenAlexaff
Carol A. Fackler, Nancy Baugh, Ann A. Lovegren, Carol Nemeroff, Janet Whatley Blum

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Reports · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMobile Health and mHealth Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionIntervention (counseling)Promotion (chess)PsychologyPsychological interventionFeelingTracking (education)GerontologyPopulationMedical educationMedicinePublic healthPedagogyEnvironmental healthNursingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Obesity is an issue for young adults in the U.S. This population is particularly vulnerable to weight gain as they move from adolescence to young adulthood, especially as they transition from high school to college. Adopting a health promotion approach, a university-based cluster of researchers, community advocates, and a technology partner embarked on a two-year seed development project that focused on development, implementation, and evaluation of a web-based healthy lifestyle intervention for college students. Using a mixed-method design, two convenience samples of residential university students were recruited to participate in a 4-week intervention called Eat, Move, Live, in which they interacted with a newly-created comprehensive website about management of a healthy lifestyle. Participants' post-intervention readiness for change increased by 15% (eating and life balance behaviors) to 23% (moving behaviors). Participants reported increased awareness of eating behaviors, and feelings of engagement in tracking their fruit and vegetable consumption. Findings suggest that technology may be utilized to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of achieving students' individual goals related to healthy living. These preliminary findings have implications for increasing the development and implementation of technological approaches to health promotion for young adult students.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.421 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing ReportsSame topicMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207