Goal adjustment, physical and sedentary activity, and well‐being and health among breast cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This longitudinal study examined whether goal adjustment capacities (i.e., goal disengagement and goal reengagement) would predict breast cancer survivors' emotional well-being and physical health by facilitating high levels of physical activity and low levels of sedentary activity. METHODS: Self-reports of goal adjustment capacities were measured among 176 female breast cancer survivors at baseline. Self-reports of physical activity, sedentary activity, daily affect, and daily physical health symptoms (e.g., nausea or pain) were measured at baseline and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Goal reengagement predicted high levels of positive affect and low levels of physical symptoms at baseline and increases in positive affect over 3 months. The combination of high goal disengagement and high goal reengagement was associated with particularly large 3-month increases in positive affect. The effects of goal reengagement on baseline affect and physical health were mediated by high baseline levels of physical activity, and the interaction effect on 3-month changes in positive affect was mediated by low baseline levels of sedentary activity. CONCLUSIONS: Goal adjustment capacities can exert beneficial effects on breast cancer survivors' well-being and physical health by facilitating adaptive levels of physical and sedentary activity. Integrating goal adjustment processes into clinical practice may be warranted.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".