Breaking sedentary behavior among university students: the interest of incorporating cycling desks concurrently with an academic task at light intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: University students experience ≈ 9 h of sitting/day, which may support interventions like active desks. Participants: University students (n = 24) Method: Randomized crossover trial aimed to compare effects of sitting (SED), low and moderate-intensity cycling desks (CDLPA; CDMPA) concurrent to an academic task (30-minute video + written exam). Selective visual attention (Tobii Glasses 2) was measured throughout the intervention, and workload (NASA-TLX) and anxiety (POMS-SF) were assessed before and after the video and post-exam. Results: In this pilot study, the exam scores were lower for CDMPA compared to CDLPA (p = 0.009). During the video, selective visual attention was lower for CDMPA compared to SED and CDMPA compared to CDLPA (both p < 0.001). After the video, the perceived workload was higher with CDMPA, compared to SED and CDLPA (both p < 0.001). Anxiety increased throughout the experiment, regardless of the conditions (p = 0.015). Conclusion: CPLPA may be prioritized to increase physical activity levels without hindering learning processes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".