MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560961261 · doi:10.1111/jabr.12027

The Early Bird Gets the Worm! Congruency Between Intentions and Behavior is Highest When Plans to Exercise are Made for the Morning

2014· article· en· W1560961261 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorningEveningPsychologySet (abstract data type)ScheduleSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minimizing the exercise intention–behavior gap remains an ongoing research pursuit. Based on a limited resource model of self‐regulation, we hypothesized the existence of a more prominent exercise intention–behavior gap later in the day. The current studies assessed exercise intention follow through over the course of a week ( Study 1 = 115 working adults; Study 2 = 191 students). Both studies demonstrated a greater inconsistency between exercise intentions and actual exercise bouts in the evening compared to the morning. Specifically, the greatest number of intentions not carried through occurred for intentions made between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. These results provide preliminary evidence suggesting that exercise intentions set for the morning are more successful than those set for the evening, translating to practical advice when to schedule exercise bouts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.467
Teacher spread0.274 · 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