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 OpenAlex
Lee W. Jones, Kerry S. Courneya, Adrian Fairey, John R. Mackey

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.

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.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
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