MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997217321 · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.24.2.189

Does the Theory of Planned Behavior Mediate the Effects of an Oncologist's Recommendation to Exercise in Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer Survivors? Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

2005· article· en· W1997217321 on OpenAlexaff
Lee W. Jones, Kerry S. Courneya, Adrian Fairey, John R. Mackey

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorRandomized controlled trialMedicinePsychological interventionPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Social cognitive theoryInternal medicinePsychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This randomized trial examined the effects of 2 oncologist-based exercise interventions--recommendation only (RO) and recommendation plus referral (RR)--versus usual care (UC) on social-cognitive constructs from the theory of planned behavior (TPB). The authors also examined whether the TPB mediated the significant effect of the RO intervention on exercise and explained the null effect of the RR intervention. Independent t tests revealed that both interventions had significant effects on TPB constructs; however, only the RO intervention impacted perceived behavioral control (PBC). Path analyses indicated that PBC was the only construct with a direct effect on exercise and that it mediated the effect of the RO intervention on exercise and explained the null effect of the RR intervention.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.396 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations88
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207