Toward the design of persuasive systems for a healthy workplace: a real-time posture detection
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
Persuasive technologies, in connection with human factor engineering requirements for healthy workplaces, have played a significant role in ensuring a change in human behavior. Healthy workplaces suggest different best practices applicable to body posture, proximity to the computer system, movement, lighting conditions, computer system layout, and other significant psychological and cognitive aspects. Most importantly, body posture suggests how users should sit or stand in workplaces in line with best and healthy practices. In this study, we developed two study phases (pilot and main) using two deep learning models: convolutional neural networks (CNN) and Yolo-V3. To train the two models, we collected posture datasets from creative common license YouTube videos and Kaggle. We classified the dataset into comfortable and uncomfortable postures. Results show that our YOLO-V3 model outperformed CNN model with a mean average precision of 92%. Based on this finding, we recommend that YOLO-V3 model be integrated in the design of persuasive technologies for a healthy workplace. Additionally, we provide future implications for integrating proximity detection taking into consideration the ideal number of centimeters users should maintain in a healthy workplace.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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