Explaining the Aerobic Exercise Intention-behavior Gap in Cancer Survivors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to quantify the aerobic exercise intention-behavior gap in hematologic cancer survivors (HCS), and examine the correlates of intention formation and translation using the multi-process action control framework. METHODS: HCS (N = 606) completed a survey reporting their aerobic exercise motivation and behavior. The correlates of intention formation and translation were analyzed using separate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Overall, 71% (N = 428/606) of HCS intended to do aerobic exercise, 44% (N = 267/606) met aerobic exercise guidelines, and 60% of intenders (N = 256/428) translated their intention into aerobic exercise. Attitude (OR = 1.9), perceived control (OR = 1.5), younger age (OR = 2.0), and higher education (OR = 2.1) explained intention formation (all ps ≤ .001). A sense of obligation/regret (OR = 2.8), self-regulation over alternative activities (OR = 1.6), attitude (OR = 2.0), perceived control (OR = 1.7), planning (OR = 1.7), being female (OR = 2.0), and younger (OR = 3.0) explained intention translation (all ps < .005). CONCLUSIONS: Forming an intention is insufficient for many HCS to meet aerobic exercise guidelines. Interventions targeting the determinants of both intention formation and translation may be most effective in promoting aerobic exercise in cancer survivors.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it