MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104030257 · doi:10.1123/jsep.27.3.335

Correlates of Exercise Intentions in Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Survivors: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior

2005· article· en· W2104030257 on OpenAlexaff
Kerry S. Courneya, Jeffrey K. Vallance, Lee W. Jones, Tony Reiman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorPsychologyDemographicsPsychological interventionClinical psychologyNorm (philosophy)Social psychologyControl (management)PsychiatryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study we examined the demographic, medical, and social cognitive correlates of exercise intentions in non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) survivors using the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Participants were 399 NHL survivors who completed a mailed survey that assessed demographics, past exercise, and the TPB (i.e., intention, perceived behavioral control, affective and instrumental attitudes, and subjective norm). Descriptive data indicated that only about 50% of NHL survivors intended to exercise at levels that are consistent with current public health guidelines. In support of the TPB, multiple regression analysis indicated that the model explained 55% of the variance in exercise intentions, with perceived behavioral control (β = .47), affective attitude (β = .23), and subjective norm (β = .15), being the most important correlates. It was concluded that the TPB provides a good framework on which to base interventions designed to increase exercise intentions in NHL survivors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207