“Go Girls!”: psychological and behavioral outcomes associated with a group-based healthy lifestyle program for adolescent girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess changes in adolescent girls' health-enhancing cognitions and behaviors targeted by the Go Girls! group-based mentorship lifestyle program. Three hundred and ten adolescent girls (nested within 40 Go Girls! groups) completed questionnaires that assessed cognitions (attitudes, self-regulatory efficacy, and intentions) and behaviors (physical activity and dietary) at four time points (two pre-program, one at the end of the program, and one at 7-week follow-up). Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine changes in the outcome variables among Go Girls! participants (M age = 11.68 years, SD = 0.80). No significant changes occurred in the outcome variables during the baseline comparison period (Time 1-2). When compared to the average of the baseline assessments, 7 weeks after completing the program, girls reported significant improvements in physical activity (M Baseline PAtotal = 3.82, SD = 3.49; M T4 PAtotal = 4.38, SD = 3.75) and healthy eating (M Baseline = 10.71, SD = 1.13; M T4 = 11.35, SD = 1.05) behavior and related cognitions (d values ≥0.65). Findings provide preliminary support for programs that foster belongingness and target health behaviors through mentorship models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".