Predictors of physical activity, healthy eating and being smoke-free in teens: A theory of planned behaviour approach
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
This paper elicited context specific underlying beliefs for physical activity, fruit and vegetable consumption and smoke-free behaviour from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), and then determined whether the TPB explained significant variation in intentions and behaviour over a 1 month period in a sample of grade 7-9 (age 12-16 years) adolescents. Eighteen individual interviews and one focus group were used to elicit student beliefs. Analyses of this data produced behavioural, normative and control beliefs which were put into a TPB questionnaire completed by 183 students at time 1 and time 2. The Path analyses from the main study showed that the attitude/intention relationship was moderately large for fruit and vegetable consumption and small to moderate for being smoke free. Perceived behavioural control had a large effect on being smoke free and a moderately large effect for fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity. Intention had a large direct effect on all three behaviours. Common (e.g. feel better, more energy) and behaviour-specific (e.g., prevent yellow fingers, control my weight) beliefs emerged across the three health behaviours. These novel findings, to the adolescent population, support the importance of specific attention being given to each of the behaviours in future multi-behavioural interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 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