Psychosocial Factors Predicting SARS‐Preventive Behaviors in Four Major SARS‐Affected Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multinational study examined intended and actual adoption of SARS‐preventive behaviors in major SARS‐affected regions: Guangdong (China), Hong Kong, Singapore, and Toronto (Canada). The theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) were adopted as theoretical frameworks. A measure was constructed to assess attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control (PBC), knowledge of SARS, and SARS‐preventive behaviors. Seventy‐five working adults were recruited from each region. They completed the new measure in an initial study, and reported their actual behaviors 2 weeks later. Results provided cross‐cultural generalizability of the TRA by showing that attitude and subject norm predicted SARS‐preventive behaviors for all the groups. PBC was a statistically significant predictor for all participants except those from Guangdong, indicating that the TPB is applicable only to people from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Toronto. Knowledge of SARS also was found to be an independent predictor.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".