A comparison of physical activity-related social-cognitive factors between those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and diabetes free adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite strong evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in managing and preventing diabetes, the majority of Canadians living with or without diabetes are insufficiently active to achieve health benefits. The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in key physical activity-related, psychosocial constructs from major social-cognitive theories/models for individuals with type 1 diabetes (n = 695), type 2 diabetes (n = 1540) and those without diabetes (n = 829). The relatively similar scores reported for the social-cognitive constructs between the groups suggest that theoretically driven, generic population-based strategies operationalizing key socio-cognitive constructs for promoting physical activity may have utility for the general and diabetes specific populations. However, both diabetes groups reported significantly lower (p < 0.001) response efficacy (benefits of physical activity) scores, and higher scores for cons of performing physical activity than the non-diabetes group (p < 0.001). Further, the type 1 diabetes group had significantly higher (p < 0.05) physical activity cons scores than the other two study groups. The findings of this study may guide practitioners in designing population-based, physical activity programs that capitalize on generic strategies for the general and diabetes populations, and identify efforts as to where specific tailoring (e.g. emphasizing physical activity benefits) is needed for those living with diabetes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".