Does age modify the association between coping planning and physical activity behavior among adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to self-regulation theories, coping planning (CP) is useful for helping individuals deal with anticipated barriers to goal attainment. However, findings on the association between CP and physical activity (PA) have been inconsistent. It is possible that the CP-PA association varies with age as aging is sometimes associated with a decline in executive functions. The purpose of this study was to test the moderating effect of age on the CP-PA association in adults. Two independent samples (n1=100; n2=120) of adult (18-64 years) members of a fitness center were included. Participants (mean [SD] age = 45.9 [11.1] years) completed a questionnaire measuring CP (α = 0.70). Scores were reflected and a logarithmic transformation was applied given that CP was negatively skewed. PA was assessed using the mean weekly number of mandatory check-in records retrieved from the fitness center's electronic database over a 12-week or 18-week period in the first and second samples, respectively. Multilevel linear modeling revealed age moderated the CP-PA association (p=0.02). The association was positive and stronger for younger adults (at the mean – 1 SD; BCP = - 1.25) compared to older adults (at the mean + 1 SD; BCP = 0.51). Predicted PA frequencies (times/week) were 2.35 and 1.28 for the highest and lowest levels of CP for younger adults, whereas they were 1.75 and 2.18 for older adults. The CP-PA association appears to be heightened in younger adults, suggesting CP could be a potential target for interventions aimed at promoting PA among younger adults.Acknowledgments: Steve Amireault was supported by the Training Program in Obesity of the Merck Frosst-Canadian Institute of Health Research (CIHR) Research Chair on Obesity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".