MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983184055 · doi:10.1080/08870446.2011.531570

Changing exercise through targeting affective or cognitive attitudes

2011· article· en· W1983184055 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Health · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsPsychologyAffect (linguistics)CognitionClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two studies investigated the impact of affective and cognitive messages compared to a no-message control on self-reported exercise. Students (Study 1, N = 383 and Study 2, N = 197) were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions (control - no message, affective message or cognitive message). Participants completed questionnaire measures tapping components of the theory of planned behaviour in relation to exercise and reported their level of exercise (3 weeks later). In Study 2, measures of need for affect (NFA) and need for cognition (NFC) were also completed. Results showed that affective messages consistently produced greater increases in self-reported level of exercise than the other conditions. In both studies, this effect was partly mediated by affective attitude change. Study 2 indicated these effects to be significantly stronger among those high in NFA or low in NFC. These findings indicate the value of affective messages that target affective attitudes in changing exercise behaviour.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.257
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.256 · 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