A theory-based model of cumulative activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Energy expenditure can be used to examine the health of individuals and the impact of environmental factors on physical activity. One of the more common ways to quantify energy expenditure is to process accelerometer data into some unit of measurement for this expenditure, such as Actigraph activity counts, and bin those measures into physical activity levels. However, accepted thresholds can vary between demographics, and some units of energy measurements do not currently have agreed upon thresholds. We present an approach which computes unique thresholds for each individual, using piecewise exponential functions to model the characteristics of their overall physical activity patterns corresponding to well established sedentary, light, moderate and vigorous activity levels from the literature. Models are fit using existing piecewise fitting techniques and software. Most participants' activity intensity profile is exceptionally well modeled as piecewise exponential decay. Using this model, we find emergent groupings of participant behavior and categorize individuals into non-vigorous, consistent, moderately active, or extremely active activity intensity profiles. In the supplemental materials, we demonstrate that the parameters of the model correlate with demographics of age, household size, and level of education, inform behavior change under COVID lockdown, and are reasonably robust to signal frequency.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".