Are exercise social-cognitive factors and behaviours different for adults with diabetes? A randomized community sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exercise plays a key role in the prevention and delay of the onset of Type 2 diabetes and in the management of this disorder. To determine if there are differences in key social-cognitive determinants of exercise and self-reported physical activity levels between adults with diabetes and those without the condition, a random selected sample of adults was surveyed. A telephone interview assessed physical activity behaviour and key social-cognitive constructs from major health behaviour change theories/models. The mean energy expenditure was not significantly different between the diabetes (n = 46) and the non-diabetes (n = 1556) groups. The diabetes group reported significantly lower scores for self-efficacy and perceived behavioural control, but higher for fear of, and vulnerability to, general health and cardiovascular disease threat. The data suggest that it may not be necessary to promote health threat messages, as threat is already high for this diabetes population and studies have shown that excess threat does not promote recommended exercise and health behaviours. Instead, the low levels of self-efficacy and perceived behavioural control among those with diabetes emphasize the importance of designing specific strategies (e.g., skills, incremental success) to increase their self-confidence in undertaking physical activity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".