Testing mediator variables in a resistance training intervention for obese adults with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A poor understanding of behaviour change mechanisms has hindered the development of effective physical activity interventions. The aim of this study was to identify potential mediators of change in a home-based resistance training (RT) program for obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Obese individuals with type 2 diabetes (N = 48) were randomly allocated to either an RT intervention (n = 27) or a control group (n = 21) for the 16-week study period. The study sample included 16 men and 32 women and the mean age of participants was 54.4 (±11.7) years. Participants in the RT group received a multi-gym and dumbbells and home supervision from a certified personal trainer. RT behaviour was measured using a modified Godin Leisure Time Questionnaire. Social-cognitive constructs were measured and tested in a mediating variable framework using a product-of-coefficients test. The intervention had a significant effect on RT behaviour (p < 0.001) and muscular strength (p < 0.001). The intervention had a significant effect on RT planning strategies (p < 0.01), which mediated the effect of the intervention on RT behaviour. The home-based RT program successfully targeted participants' RT planning strategies which contributed to their exercise adherence.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".