Physical activity staging distribution: Establishing a heuristic using multiple studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the population prevalence across the stages of change (SoC) for regular physical activity and to establish the prevalence of people at risk. With support from the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, nine Behavior Change Consortium studies with a common physical activity SoC measure agreed to collaborate and share data. The distribution pattern identified in these predominantly reactively recruited studies was Precontemplation (PC) = 5% (+/- 10), Contemplation (C) = 10% (+/- 10), Preparation (P) = 40% (+/- 10), Action = 10% (+/- 10), and Maintenance = 35% (+/- 10). With reactively recruited studies, it can be anticipated that there will be a higher percentage of the sample that is ready to change and a greater percentage of currently active people compared to random representative samples. The at-risk stage distribution (i.e., those not at criteria or PC, C, and P) was approximately 10% PC, 20% C, and 70% P in specific samples and approximately 20% PC, 10% C, and 70% P in the clinical samples. Knowing SoC heuristics can inform public health practitioners and policymakers about the population's motivation for physical activity, help track changes over time, and assist in the allocation of resources.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".