MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Road to Exercise Is Filled With Good Intentions: Why Don't My Proximal Exercise Intentions Match My Actions?

2008· article· en· W1501185612 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsLimitingPsychologyCoping (psychology)Multivariate analysisAudiologyMultivariate analysis of varianceClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyInternal medicineMedicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Difficulty in following through with proximal exercise intentions (PIs) may be associated with experiencing frequent, limiting perceived reasons (factors causing indecision) and low self‐regulatory efficacy (SRE) to cope. Differences in reason frequency, limitation, and SRE between adults whose PI frequency matched their exercise frequency and adults whose PI frequency was higher than their actual frequency ( mismatched ) were examined. Participants ( N = 163) completed Web‐based measures of reason frequency, limitation, coping strategies and related SRE, intention, and exercise for the prior 4 weeks. A multivariate analysis of variance comparing matched ( n = 89) with mismatched ( n = 74) groups was significant. Matched participants reported significantly lower reason limitation and higher SRE, suggesting that they may have the SRE to buffer negative effects of limiting reasons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.509
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.272 · 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