Cue Consistency Associated with Physical Activity Automaticity and Behavior
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
Physical activity is partly regulated by automatic processes such as habits (ie, well-learned responses to cues), but it remains unclear what cues trigger these processes. This study examined the relations of physical activity automaticity and behavior with the consistency of people, activity, routine, location, time, and mood cues present upon initiation of physical activity behavior. Australian adults (N = 1,244, 627 female, M age = 55 years) reported their physical activity automaticity, behavior, and the degree of consistency of these cues each time they start a physical activity behavior. Multiple regression models, which accounted for gender and age, revealed that more consistent routine and mood cues were linked to more physical activity automaticity; whereas more consistent time and people cues were linked to more physical activity behavior. Interventions may more effectively translate into long-lasting physical activity habits if they draw people's attention to the salient cues of time, people, routine, and mood.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it