Determinants of Physical Activity Among People with Spinal Cord Injury: A Test of Social Cognitive Theory
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: Little theory-based research has focused on understanding and increasing physical activity among people with physical disabilities. Testing a social cognitive theory-based model of determinants is important for identifying variables to target in physical activity-enhancing interventions. PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to examine Social Cognitive Theory variables as predictors of physical activity among people living with spinal cord injury. METHODS: Structural equation modeling was used to test a model of Social Cognitive Theory predictors of physical activity (n=160). RESULTS: The model explained 39% of the variance in physical activity. Self-regulation was the only significant, direct predictor. Self-regulatory efficacy and outcome expectations had indirect effects, mediated by self-regulation. CONCLUSION: Social Cognitive Theory is useful for predicting physical activity in people with spinal cord injury. Self-regulation is the most potent Social Cognitive Theory predictor of physical activity in people with spinal cord injury. Self-regulation and its determinants should be targeted in physical activity-enhancing interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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