A prospective investigation of the relationships between self-presentation processes and physical activity in women treated for breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In the current study, we (a) describe naturally occurring changes in self-presentation processes (i.e., impression motivation, impression construction) and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) over a period of 6 months among women who were treated for breast cancer; (b) evaluate the associations of cancer-specific factors with self-presentation processes and MVPA; and (c) examine the within- and between-person associations of self-presentation processes with MVPA. METHOD: For this prospective longitudinal study, women (n = 128; Mage = 55.14 years) completed questionnaires posttreatment for breast cancer (Mtime since treatment = 3.96 months), as well as 3 and 6 months later. RESULTS: Based on the findings of the multilevel analysis, self-presentation processes remained stable over time, whereas MVPA levels changed over time (Blinear = 6.11, SE = 2.44, Bquadratic = -3.41, SE = 1.23). Radiotherapy was related to impression motivation (B = -.40, SE = .19) and impression construction (B = -.45, SE = .15), and chemotherapy was related to impression motivation (B = .31, SE = .15). Impression motivation was associated with MVPA at the between-person level (γ₀₁ = 5.72, SE = 1.22), and impression construction was associated with MVPA at the between- and within-person levels (γ₀₁ = 3.45, SE = 1.49; γ₁₀ = 3.67, SE = 1.66). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into the patterns of self-presentation processes and MVPA during early cancer survivorship, as well as the associations between these constructs at the within- and between-person levels. Based on these findings, more research is needed to determine whether self-presentation processes should be conceptualized as state or trait characteristics or as having both components, and extend the self-presentation framework to incorporate additional explanatory variables as this might provide a more complete explanation of MVPA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".