Sit less, stand more: A randomized point-of-decision prompt intervention to reduce sedentary time
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine if a point-of-decision prompt (PODP) targeting sedentary behaviour influenced the proportion of standing individuals during presentations at an academic conference. Methods: Twelve, one-hour groups of presentation sessions (Global Summit on the Physical Activity of Children conference, May 2014) were included in this study; half were randomly assigned to the intervention group and half to the control group. The intervention group was exposed to an oral PODP at the beginning and middle of the presentations. Researchers performed three counts: beginning (e.g. first 10 min), middle (e.g. 30–40 min), and end (e.g. 50–60 min); each count included the number of individuals in the audience and the number of standing individuals. Results: A significantly larger proportion of individuals chose to stand during intervention group presentations (16.9 ± 2.0%) compared to control group presentations (10.5 ± 1.5%; chi2 = 7.13; p < 0.05). Conclusions: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of PODPs at decreasing sedentary behaviour during an academic conference. PODPs are simple, cost-effective interventions that require minimal time commitment, and represent a population health intervention that could reduce sedentary behaviour in a large group setting.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".