Do government brochures affect physical activity cognition? A pilot study of Canada's physical activity guide to healthy active living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health Canada has published national physical activity (PA) guidelines, which are included in their 26-page Physical Activity Guide to Healthy Active Living (CPAG). To date, the use of CPAG as a motivational instrument for PA promotion has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether reading CPAG 1) increased motivational antecedents to engage in regular PA, and 2) increased regular PA intention and behaviour over 1 month. Participants included 130 randomly sampled Canadian adults (18 years or older) who were randomly mailed pack ages consisting of either 1) a questionnaire and a copy of CPAG, or 2) a questionnaire. Questionnaire items pertained to participants' sociodemographics, previous PA behaviours (Godin Leisure-Time Questionnaire) and PA motivation (theory of planned behaviour). Participants were then sent a follow-up questionnaire pertaining to their PA behaviours throughout the previous month. Results revealed significant interactions between the guide condition and previous activity status on instrumental behavioural beliefs about strength activities and subjective norms about endurance activities (p < 0.05), but all other factors were not significantly different. It was concluded that among previously inactive people, receiving this guide may change some informational/motivational constructs, but key motivational antecedents (affective attitude, perceived behavioural control) and outcomes (intention, behaviour) seem unaffected.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".