MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6990708321

The Effects of a Self-Management Treatment Package on Physical Activity in University Students with Depressive Symptoms

2020· other· en· W6990708321 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepressive symptomsDepression (economics)Physical activityPsychological interventionQuality of life (healthcare)Sleep (system call)Clinical trialSleep quality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research demonstrates that exercise interventions are effective in decreasing depressive symptoms; however, these treatments are infrequently implemented in clinical practice. Self-management techniques offer an effective, cost-efficient approach to teaching individuals with depression to engage in increased physical activity. This study evaluated a treatment package including goal setting, self-monitoring, and feedback for increasing participants’ daily steps. Secondary measures included depressive symptoms, sleep quality and duration. A changing-criterion design within a concurrent multiple baseline design across two participant dyads was used. Results demonstrated that the treatment was efficacious for increasing walking in participants, with varying degrees of consistency. Additionally, increased walking may improve sleep duration. Mid-treatment scores on the University Student Depression Inventory showed decreases in some symptoms (i.e., lower total and, or subscale[s] scores) suggesting walking may be associated with a decrease in some symptoms. Clinician ratings on the Clinical Global Impression Scale indicated that the change in symptoms were significant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)→French-language works237,207→