MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4310050159 · doi:10.2196/39322

Analyzing Person-Place Interactions During Walking Episodes: Innovative Ambulatory Assessment Approach of Walking-Triggered e-Diaries

2022· article· en· W4310050159 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Martina Kanning, Lukas Bollenbach, Julian Schmitz, Christina Niermann, Stefan Fina

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsAccelerometerPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGlobal Positioning SystemAmbulatoryResidenceMovement (music)Preferred walking speedApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychologySimulationMedicineDemographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Walking behavior is positively associated with physiological and mental health as much evidence has already shown. Walking is also becoming a critical issue for health promotion in urban environments as it is the most often used form of active mobility and helps to replace carbon dioxide emissions from motorized forms of transport. It therefore contributes to mitigate the negative effects of climate change and heat islands within cities. However, to promote walking among urban dwellers and to utilize its health-enhancing potential, we need to know more about the way in which physical and social environments shape individual experiences during walking episodes. Such person-place interactions could not adequately be analyzed in former studies owing to methodological constraints. OBJECTIVE: This study introduces walking-triggered e-diaries as an innovative ambulatory assessment approach for time-varying associations, and investigates its accuracy with 2 different validation strategies. METHODS: The walking trigger consists of a combination of movement acceleration via an accelerometer and mobile positioning of the cellphone via GPS and transmission towers to track walking activities. The trigger starts an e-diary whenever a movement acceleration exceeds a predetermined threshold and participants' locations are identified as nonstationary outside a predefined place of residence. Every 420 (±300) seconds, repeated e-diaries were prompted as long as the trigger conditions were met. Data were assessed on 10 consecutive days. First, to investigate accuracy, we reconstructed walking routes and calculated a percentage score for all triggered prompts in relation to all walking routes where a prompt could have been triggered. Then, to provide data about its specificity, we used momentary self-reports and objectively assessed movement behavior to describe activity levels before the trigger prompted an e-diary. RESULTS: Data of 67 participants could be analyzed and the walking trigger led to 3283 e-diary prompts, from which 2258 (68.8%) were answered. Regarding accuracy, the walking trigger prompted an e-diary on 732 of 842 (86.9%) reconstructed walking routes. Further, in 838 of 1206 (69.5%) triggered e-diaries, participants self-reported that they were currently walking outdoors. Steps and acceleration movement was higher during these self-reported walking episodes than when participants denied walking outdoors (steps: 106 vs 32; acceleration>0.2 g in 58.4% vs 19% of these situations). CONCLUSIONS: Accuracy analysis revealed that walking-triggered e-diaries are suitable to collect different data of individuals' current experiences in situations in which a person walks outdoors. Combined with environmental data, such an approach increases knowledge about person-place interactions and provides the possibility to gain knowledge about user preferences for health-enhancing urban environments. From a methodological viewpoint, however, specificity analysis showed how changes in trigger conditions (eg, increasing the threshold for movement acceleration) lead to changes in accuracy.

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)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.351 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicUrban Transport and Accessibility→French-language works237,207→