Applying a deterrence nudge strategy for promoting stair usage in a university setting
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
PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine whether indirectly deterring elevator use through time-targeted Point-of-Decision Prompts (PODPs) efficiently increased stair usage in a university setting. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design (pre-post design) was employed over 2 weeks in September 2023. Baseline observations were conducted for 1 week prior to signage placement at two locations. The intervention in this study lasted for 1 week, immediately following baseline observations. Three hundred and thirty-one and 384 participants were observed during the baseline and intervention periods, respectively. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the increase in the act of ascending the stairs. RESULTS: Our intervention, which focused on time-related messages, effectively increased stair usage among university students (coefficient = 0.435, p-value < 0.01). Furthermore, females (coefficient = -0.820, p-value < 0.05) and individuals aged ≥ 30 years (coefficient = 1.048, p-value < 0.01) were notably more likely to be influenced by our intervention than males and individuals aged < 30 years. CONCLUSION: Indirectly discouraging elevator use through time-targeted PODPs may amplify the effects of the previously employed time-related messages. Our findings suggested that a deterrence nudge should primarily be directed towards promoting stair usage among females or individuals aged ≥ 30 years.
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 | 0.000 | 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