Does Socioeconomic Status Moderate the Relationship Between Health Cognitions and Behaviors?: a Comment on Conner et al.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper of Conner et al. [1] illustrates the growing interest in health psychology towards a better understanding of the (cognitions) intention–behavior gap. In one of the first publication to observe this problem [2], it was revealed that a significant proportion of individuals who had positive intentions regarding the regular practice of physical activity (37.8 %) were still inactive at follow-up. In the scientific literature, this phenomenon is now known as the “intention–behavior gap” [3]. As mentioned by Conner et al. [1], most social theories assume that the influence of external factors (e.g., availability of resources) on behavior is mediated by cognitions. We agree, but one exception is the Theory of Interpersonal Behavior [4]. This theory assumes interaction effects (moderating role) between intention and behavior for variables named facilitating factors such as income, availability of resources, etc. Obviously, in the future, more attention should be given to the theoretical assumptions underlying the causal link between intention and behavior as specified in this theory.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.056 | 0.057 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".