The Specificity of Self‐Efficacy over the Course of a Progressive Exercise Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regular physical exercise is an important health‐promoting behaviour. Self‐efficacy has been demonstrated to be a robust predictor of health behaviour in general and physical activity in particular. Two studies are reported where the change in task self‐efficacy, scheduling self‐efficacy, and coping self‐efficacy for two types of physical activity (walking or traditional fitness activity) was examined over time in a progressive exercise programme. A progressive programme increases in intensity and duration over the course of the study. A sample of 115 people completed a 6‐month activity trial where they were assigned to a walking group, a traditional exercise group, or no activity control group. Repeated measures MANOVAs for each type of self‐efficacy revealed quadratic patterns of change that were specific to the type of exercise engaged in. The results suggest that self‐efficacy is behaviour specific and can be expected to be responsive to overt experiences with specific exercise modalities. Results also suggest that additional support might be necessary as late as 3 months into the programme to maintain levels of exercise consistent with public health guidelines.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".