MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038579330 · doi:10.1097/jes.0b013e3181d49612

Protection Motivation Theory

2010· review· en· W2038579330 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyCoping (psychology)Domain (mathematical analysis)PopulationCognitive psychologySocial psychologyCoping behaviorSelf-determination theoryApplied psychologyPsychotherapistMedicinePolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief This article reviews the published studies in the physical activity domain, which include novel hypothesis from our laboratory, that have tested Rogers' Protection Motivation Theory. Across the various population groups, the theory's coping appraisal is generally supported; however, there is limited support for the theory's threat components. Implications of these findings are discussed from both theoretical and practical perspectives. This paper presents our lab's novel hypotheses in the Protection Motivation Theory in the physical activity domain and reviews the 14 studies, which have tested the domain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it