Helping Middle‐Aged Women Translate Physical Activity Intentions Into Action: Combining the Theory of Planned Behavior and Implementation Intentions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current experiment examined whether women with implementation intentions show greater correspondence between their exercise intentions and behaviors, exercise more frequently, and show changes over time in measures of theory of planned behavior (TPB) constructs and scheduling self‐efficacy relative to a control group. Participants were 47 women randomly allocated to an implementation intentions or control condition. Measures of TPB constructs and scheduling self‐efficacy were assessed at baseline and 8 weeks later. Regression analyses showed that intentions were a significant predictor of behavior for women in the experimental condition (p .01). A significant Condition * Time interaction was found for scheduling efficacy (p .03) and a nonsignificant interaction was found for perceived behavioral control (p = .06), indicating that only the experimental group increased scheduling self‐efficacy and perceived behavioral control. No significant group differences were found for the other TPB constructs or self‐reported exercise.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it