MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Typology of Stages of Adherence to Exercise Behavior: A Cluster Analysis

2001· article· en· W2053909699 on OpenAlexaff
Gaston Godin, Pierre Valois, Raymond Desharnais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyTypologyStatisticCluster (spacecraft)Clinical psychologyAmbivalenceUnivariateSocial psychologyNorm (philosophy)Multivariate statisticsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to report the results of a cluster analysis of current exercise behavior and of intention to exercise in the next year. A sample of 22,286 individuals was recruited over 4 successive 3‐month periods. Each individual was asked to complete a self‐administered questionnaire assessing exercise behavior in the last 3 months and intention, attitudes, perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control with respect to exercising in the coming year. The Beale's pseudo F statistic clearly suggests that there are 4 stages of adherence to exercise: unconcerned, ambivalent, optimistic, and active. Finally, MANOVAs and univariate tests indicated that the 4 clusters differed in attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control (p < 0001). These results support the appropriateness of combining intention and behavior to identify stages of adherence to exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.382 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Social PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207