The Role of Outcome Expectations and Self-Efficacy in Explaining Physical Activity Behaviors of Individuals with Multiple Sclerosis
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
Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a debilitating neurological disease with few successful interventions available for alleviating symptoms. Physical activity (PA) may aid in alleviating symptoms; however, most individuals with MS are inactive. To promote PA within this population, it is important to identify key theoretical correlates of PA specific to them and then target these in PA interventions. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of self-efficacy and outcome expectations in explaining PA. Seventy-six participants completed a baseline questionnaire measuring these variables and a telephone follow-up 1 month later concerning PA behaviors. Regression analyses showed that self-efficacy (beta = .41) and outcome expectations (beta = .27) directly influenced PA, and that self-efficacy directly influenced outcome expectations (beta = .28). Therefore, to promote PA within this population, interventions should target both self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Individuals with MS need to better understand the benefits of PA and how it can alleviate or improve their symptoms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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