Social structure, social cognition, and physical activity: A test of four models
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it