Social Influence and Adolescent Health-Related Physical Activity in Structured and Unstructured Settings: Role of Channel and Type
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Social influence channels (e.g., parents) and types (e.g., compliance) have each been related to physical activity independently, but little is known about how these two categories of influence may operate in combination. PURPOSE: This study examined the relationships between various combinations of social influence and physical activity among youth across structured and unstructured settings. METHODS: Adolescents (N=304), classified as high or low active, reported the social influence combinations they received for being active. RESULTS: Participants identified three channels and three types of influence associated with being active. For structured activity, compliance with peers and significant others predicted membership in the high active group (values of p< .001). In the unstructured setting, peer compliance (p= .009) and conformity (p= .019) were associated with active group membership. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reinforce considering both setting, as well as the channel/type combinations of social influence, when examining health-related physical activity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".