Social epidemiology of Fitbit daily steps in early adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: ), by sociodemographic factors among a diverse sample of 10-to-14-year-old adolescents in the US. METHODS: over the course of 21 days. RESULTS: ). We found effect modification by household income for Black adolescents and by sex for Asian adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: , physical activity guidelines should focus on key populations and adopt strategies optimized for adolescents from diverse backgrounds. IMPACT: Sociodemographic disparities in physical activity have been documented but mostly rely on self-reported data, which can be limited by reporting and prevarication bias. In this demographically diverse sample of 10-14-year-old early adolescents in the U.S., we found notable and nuanced sociodemographic disparities in Fitbit steps per day. More daily steps were recorded for male versus female sex, Black versus White race, heterosexual versus sexual minority, >$100,000 versus <$25,000 household income, and having married/partnered versus unmarried/unpartnered parents. We found effect modification by household income for Black adolescents and by sex for Asian adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".