Predicting the Physical Activity Intention–Behavior Profiles of Adopters and Maintainers Using Three Social Cognition Models
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
BACKGROUND: Most of the population have positive intentions to engage in physical activity (PA) but fail to act; thus, the need to understand successful translation of intention into behavior is warranted in order to focus intervention efforts. PURPOSE: The objective of the study is to examine constructs of the transtheoretical model, theory of planned behavior, and protection motivation theory as predictors of physical activity intention-behavior profiles across 6 months in a Canadian workplace sample. METHODS: Employees from three large organizations in the province of Alberta (n = 887) completed a baseline survey relating to their demographic and medical background, PA, and social-cognitive constructs. A total of 611 participants completed a second assessment 6 months later. RESULTS: Participants were grouped by five profiles: nonintenders, unsuccessful adopters, successful adopters, unsuccessful maintainers, and successful maintainers. Perceived importance and concern for PA (cognitive processes, instrumental attitude, perceived severity) distinguished nonintenders from the other four profiles, self-management and self-regulation of the behavior (behavioral processes, self-efficacy) distinguished successful adopters from unsuccessful adopters, while control over constraints (cons, perceived control, self-efficacy) were the key discriminators of successful maintainers from unsuccessful maintainers. CONCLUSION: The results provide useful information for intervention campaigns and demonstrate a need to consider adoption and maintenance profiles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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