Look, over there! A streaker! – Qualitative study examining streaking as a behaviour change technique for habit formation in recreational runners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Running as a form of physical activity is beneficial to overall health and wellbeing. The aim of the study is to examine 'run streaking' (i.e. running on consecutive days, for a minimum period of time or distance, typically at least one mile) as a technique for habit formation and behaviour change. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with 21 recreational adult runners (11 female and 10 male). Run streak length ranged from a minimum of 100 days to over 4500 days. Transcripts were analysed using a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis. Results: Run streaking was reported to lead to several benefits, health improvements and a sense of accomplishment, although many run streakers reported running through injuries and lack of recovery. Accounts of run streaking showed features of automaticity indicative of habitual behaviour. Other behavioural processes identified included motivation, identity, self-regulation and social support. Behavioural streaking showed the potential to influence change in behaviours other than running. Conclusion: Accounts of run streaking demonstrate an interplay between automatic and deliberate processes in the maintenance of running behaviour. Behavioural streaking is a technique that could be used in other behaviour change contexts beyond running to support habit formation.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".