The effects of physical activity vignettes on physical activity-related social cognitions among people with spinal cord injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of informational portrait vignettes for enhancing physical activity-related psychosocial cognitions in adults with spinal cord injury (n = 90). METHODS: Using the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA), participants were classified as being in the motivational or volitional phase of behavior change. Half of the participants were randomly allocated to read an experimental vignette, which described the physical activity behaviours, thoughts, and feelings of a character demographically similar to the reader. The remainder read a control vignette. Social cognitions were measured one-week before, and immediately after reading the vignette. RESULTS: Analyses revealed no significant effects of the vignettes on social cognitions (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Informational portrait vignettes describing a physically active person with SCI and targeting multiple HAPA-based social cognitions are not recommended as a physical activity promotional strategy for people with SCI. The effectiveness of other types of vignettes should be examined. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Until further research is completed to determine whether social comparison strategies play a meditational role in accounting for the impact of a tailored informational portrait vignette to alter leisure time physical activity among those with spinal cord injury, these types of informational intervention should not be utilized in a rehabilitation, or real-world, setting. Although informational portrait vignettes may not be effective in altering leisure time physical activity social cognitions among those with spinal cord injury, different types of vignettes, such as composite vignettes, should be explored.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".