MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Do Confidence Items Measure in the Physical Activity Domain?<sup>1</sup>

2007· article· en· W1997609925 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyConfidence intervalListing (finance)Self-confidencePhysical activityDomain (mathematical analysis)Measure (data warehouse)Social psychologyStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceMedicineData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study's purpose was to examine the measurement domain of confidence items used in physical activity research. We hypothesized that confidence items, including a phrase to hold motivation constant, would differ from standard confidence items. Participants ( N = 248 students) completed confidence items, a thought‐listing procedure, and a 2‐week self‐report of physical activity. Results showed that confidence items with motivation held constant loaded exclusively on one factor, but standard confidence items were factor complex with intention. Correlations with physical activity intention and behavior were larger for confidence items than confidence items with motivation held constant. Finally, the thought‐listing procedure identified that 3 of the 7 reasons for answering confidence items were outside the intended measurement domain of self‐efficacy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.372 · 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