Predicting exercise stage transitions over two consecutive 6‐month periods: A test of the theory of planned behaviour in a population‐based sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To predict exercise stage transitions over two consecutive 6-month periods using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). It was hypothesized that different social cognitive constructs would predict different stage transitions. DESIGN: Prospective and longitudinal in order to predict multiple stage transitions over time. Assessments were made at baseline, 6 months and 1 year. METHOD: Participants were a randomly selected population-based sample of 683 adults who completed two telephone interviews (baseline and 6 months) that assessed exercise stage, intention, perceived behavioural control, attitude, subjective norm, and social support, and a mailed survey (1 year) that assessed exercise stage. RESULTS: Progression from pre-contemplation was predicted by intention, attitude and subjective norm; progression/regression from contemplation was predicted by intention, perceived behavioural control, attitude, and social support; progression/regression from preparation was predicted by intention and attitude; and regression from action/maintenance was predicted by intention, attitude and social support. CONCLUSIONS: Different social cognitive constructs predicted different stage transitions, which indicates that exercise behaviour change may be represented by a series of stage transitions. Moreover, the TPB may be a useful model for highlighting the key social cognitive constructs that are important for exercise stage transitions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".