Validating Motivational Readiness for Exercise Behavior with Adolescents
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
The stages of motivational readiness as conceptualized by the Transtheoretical Model have been widely used among adult samples to assess readiness for adopting exercise behavior. To date, little research has been conducted using a staging framework with adolescent samples. There is a need for validation of the staging framework prior to a substantial amount of research with this age group. The current article presents two studies assessing stage and reported exercise behavior (Study 1: n = 819; M age = 15.0 years, SD = 1.2; 51% men; Study 2: n = 184; M age = 18.6 years, SD = .5; 45% men). As hypothesized in both studies, reported exercise consistently varied as a function of stage classification; those in earlier stages of readiness reported less exercise than those in later stages. Staging algorithms showed good sensitivity to detect reported exercise; however, specificity was distinctly better with the algorithm that used a specific activity criterion and immediate intention, as opposed to irregular behavior, in defining the preparation stage. Results support the validity of the staging framework for measuring motivational readiness for exercise behavior among North American adolescents.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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