MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965082455 · doi:10.1348/135910709x429901

Social structure, social cognition, and physical activity: A test of four models

2009· article· en· W1965082455 on OpenAlexaff
Gaston Godin, Paschal Sheeran, Mark Conner, Ariane Bélanger‐Gravel, Maria Cecília Bueno Jayme Gallani, Bertrand Nolin

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Health Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModerationPsychologyMediationCognitionModerated mediationStructural equation modelingDevelopmental psychologySocial cognitive theorySocial cognitionMultilevel modelSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the combined influence of social structural factors (e.g. income) and cognitions in predicting changes in physical activity. Four models were tested: (a) direct effects (social structural factors influence behaviour controlling for cognitions), (b) mediation (cognitions mediate social structural influence), (c) moderation (social structural factors moderate cognition-behaviour relations), and (d) mediated moderation (cognitions mediate the moderating effects of social structural position). DESIGN: Baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys. METHODS: A random sample of 1,483 adults completed self-report measures of physical activity at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Measures of age, gender, education, income, material and social deprivation, intention, perceived behavioural control (PBC), and intention stability also were taken. RESULTS: Apart from age, social structural factors exhibited very small or marginal effects on behaviour change, and only education moderated the intention-behaviour relation. In contrast, the magnitude of direct effects of the social cognition variables was comparatively large and intention stability mediated the moderating effect of education. CONCLUSIONS: Stable intentions and PBC are the key predictors of changes in physical activity. Consequently, our findings would suggest the value of focusing on cognitions rather than social structural variables when modelling the determinants of physical activity.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.159

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations81
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Health PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207