Exploring Physical Activity Intention as a Response to the Vancouver Olympics: an Application and Extension of the Theory of Planned 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
The theory of planned behavior (TPB) was used to understand motivational factors behind individuals' intention to become more active in response to the Vancouver 2010 Olympics. Gender, geographic proximity to the event, past behavior, and descriptive norm were explored as extensions of the TPB model. Just over 400 ( n =405) students attending undergraduate classes in two universities at opposite ends of Canada completed a questionnaire prior to the start of the Games. Results from the hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis revealed that 50.7% of the variance in respondents' intention scores was explained by the variables in the proposed extended TPB model. Specifically, attitude toward the behavior, past behavior, and descriptive norms (i.e., people's perceptions about the degree to which other people were going to become more active as a result of the Olympic Winter Games) emerged as significant predictors of intention to become more active in response to the event. Implications for the design of interventions aimed at enhancing participation legacies of Olympic Games are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it