Relationships between Stages and Processes of Change for Effective Stress Management in Chinese College Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transtheoretical model (TTM) regards of health behavior change as progression throughout the five stages: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. Processes of change such as strategies and techniques to enhance the progression among TTM concepts facilitate stage transition. Use of experiential processes (affective and/or cognitive strategies such as seeking information) for behavioral change increase and tend to peak at the precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stage and then decease. Behavioral processes (behavioral strategies such as a seeking social support) tend to be used most at the action and/or maintenance stage. This study examined relationships between stages and processes of change for effective stress management and with covariance of gender differences in Chinese college students. Effective stress management was defined as any form of healthy activity such as exercising, meditating, relaxing, and seeking social support, which is practiced for at least 20 minutes. Eight hundred and seventy one Chinese college students participated in this paper-pencil survey. Four experiential processes and five behavioral processes peaked in the action or maintenance stages. This study represented an initial but important test of validity of applying processes of change and gender difference to stress management in Chinese college students. Results partially supported its application.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".