A New Approach to Modeling Indoor Wireless Communications Channel at EHF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested the utility of an extended version of the health action process approach (HAPA) to explain the attitudinal and behavioural processes contributing to rehabilitation adherence and ultimately rehabilitation outcomes in physiotherapy patients. The HAPA focuses on self-efficacy, action and coping planning and their relationships to behavioural intentions and actual behaviour. A one group prospective design was employed in which 20 participants with soft tissue injuries of the shoulder were followed for the first four weeks of their clinic- and home-based physiotherapy. Participants enrolled in the study after their first physiotherapy clinic appointment, at which time they completed questionnaires measuring the motivational HAPA constructs and shoulder function. Action and coping plans were then made with assistance of the researcher. Adherence behaviours were measured throughout the study, and at the end the volitional stage HAPA constructs, action self-efficacy and shoulder function were assessed. Moderate to strong correlations occurred between the self-efficacies and behavioural intentions, behavioural intentions and adherence behaviours, and adherence behaviours and post-study shoulder function. These findings support the extension of the HAPA model to include the functional outcomes for soft tissue injuries of the shoulder. Its true value will nevertheless only be realized in a longer duration study with a larger sample size.
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 | 0.001 | 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".