Comparing an interdependent and dependent group contingency to increase physical activity in students during recess
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Physical activity produces important physiological, mental health, academic, and cognitive benefits in children and youth. Despite these advantages, a large proportion of this population does not meet the recommended amount of physical activity. Recent studies have shown that the interdependent (IGC) and dependent (DGC) group contingencies improve physical activity; however, no comparison of the effects of these contingencies on physical activity has been conducted. We used a multielement within a concurrent multiple baseline design across three classes to compare the effectiveness of group contingencies on physical activity. Both group contingencies increased physical activity, with the IGC producing slightly higher overall levels of physical activity at the classwide and individual levels of analyses. We also compared participants' positive and negative statements and found that, regardless of the group contingency in effect, participants emitted higher levels of positive statements about the contingency when they earned the reward than when they did not, suggesting that reward delivery influenced statements more so than the group contingency arrangement. Results are discussed within the context of treatment decisions and future research.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it