Perceptions and Attitudes Toward the Use of Wearable Technology in the Dance Studio Environment
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
Introduction: Wearable technology (WT) has become common place in sport. Increased affordability has allowed WT to reach the wrists and bodies of grassroots and community athletes. While WT is commonly used by sport populations to monitor training load, the use of WT among dancers and dance teachers is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of dancers, dance teachers, and dance parents on using WT in the dance studio environment. Methods: Dancers (aged 14+), dance teachers (aged 18+), and dance parents (with a child <18 years registered in a dance program) were recruited from local dance studios (including those offering vocational programs and/or professional training opportunities), and dance retail stores. Participants provided informed consent/assent and completed a one-time online survey about their attitudes, self-efficacy, motivations, barriers, and current practices of using WT in the studio. Results: Sixty-seven participants (19 dancers, 32 dance teachers, and 16 dance parents) completed the survey. Attitudes toward using WT were similar across all groups (mean score range = 34-38/45). Thirteen dancers (68%), 29 teachers (91%), and 7 dance parents reporting on behalf of their children (47%) were permitted to use WT in the studio. Smartwatches were the most common WT used in the studio by dancers (7/9) and teachers (13/17), while dance parents reported that their children primarily used wristband activity trackers (3/4). Among all groups, the primary reason for using WT was to track personalized training data, with calories, total duration, and heart rate being the most important perceived metrics for improving dancing. Conclusion: Across all groups, attitudes toward WT were modest. Prevalence of WT use in the dance studio varied, with wrist-based gadgets being the most common. As WT research continues in dance populations, it will be important for future studies to consider studio permissions as well as participants’ existing WT use practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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