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
The older population, especially those living alone, is less likely to meet recommended physical activity levels than other age groups and deserves more attention in this era of population ageing. However, existing technologies for supporting physical activity have been generally poorly aligned with the needs of older adults. Reasons for such problem are manifold, including the lack of involving older adults in design and evaluation, prevalent technology-driven perspectives, and the complexity of designing behavior change technology. Therefore, this research project aims to investigate how to better design behavior change technology to support the needs of older adults living alone for physical activity, which will address four main aspects: meeting user needs, investigating the rationale of technology design, improving co-design practice, and evaluating designed technology. To this end, this project will employ a human-centered iterative design methodology and actively involve the target group in the design process to let their voices heard and incorporated in design. This research will not only contribute to a deeper understanding towards the needs and preferences of this insufficiently studied group, but also identify implications for improving co-design practices as well as design opportunities for future behavior change technology.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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