Changing ideas about "fitness and fatness" and relationship to behavior in those who believe physical activity is only necessary for those overweight or obese.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined if information regarding the importance of exercise for everyone, regardless of body weight, could change explicit bias toward normal weight and sedentary persons (to be rated less fit and healthy) and attentional bias to sedentary and exercise-related stimuli in participants who believe exercise is only necessary if one is overweight or obese. The relationship of changes in explicit bias, attentional bias, and attitudes, subjective norms, self-efficacy, perceived behavioural control, and intentions to physical activity behaviour (self-report and pedometer measures) over one week was evaluated. Psychology students who strongly endorsed the item “I only need to exercise if I am overweight or obese” and were inactive were randomly assigned to an exercise-reading (n=39) or control (n = 39) group. At pretest participants completed a primed Stroop task and questionnaires (explicit bias, social cognitive variables, and physical activity). They then read information about either exercise or studying, followed by a thought listing procedure and posttest Stroop and explicit bias measures. They were given a pedometer to record steps over one week, after which they reported back and again completed the Stroop task and questionnaires. Participants in the experimental group reported significantly more physical activity and steps. Change in explicit bias and self-efficacy predicted changes in self-report physical activity. Participants who increased their physical activity also had increased self-efficacy but reported that sedentary normal weight people were more fit and healthy. There was a significant change in attentional bias for exercise words. By answering questions about exercise, participants may have been more oriented toward exercise. They may also have felt healthy, despite not being very active, and thus have rated sedentary people as more healthy. An important contribution of this research is identifying a group for targeted information and identifying information that may be useful in changing their behavior.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".