MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2750223124

Effects of the quality of implementation intentions for physical activity on achieving weight loss

2015· article· en· W2750223124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Farah Islam, Zhen Xu, Michelle Sasson, Mélodie Chamandy, Elena Ivanova, Anastasiya Voloshyn, Virginia M. Rogers, Kimberly Carrière, Anaïs Ames‐Bull, Bärbel Knaüper

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeight lossGenerosityGratitudeOverweightPhysical activityPsychologyPopulationCoding (social sciences)Social psychologyObesityGerontologyMedicineApplied psychologyPhysical therapyMathematicsPolitical scienceStatisticsEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of the current study is to investigate the effects of implementation intentions (IIs) for physical activity on weight loss in an overweight/obese population (BMI range of 28 to 45 kg/m2, waist circumference?=?88 for women, = 102 for men) partaking in the McGill CHIP Healthy Weight Program, a lifestyle behaviour change program. We hypothesize that higher specificity of the IIs (i.e., degree of II detail) leads to greater weight loss. Furthermore, we will explore whether plans for unstructured physical activity will be more or less effective for weight loss than plans for structured physical activity. Specifically, structured plans require setting time aside specifically for the planned activity, whereas unstructured plans are plans where the physical activity done in conjunction within another daily activity. A total of 454 IIs from 35 participants who have completed at least 12 weeks of the program will be coded and analyzed. The study is in the coding phase, which is done by two separate coders who rate each II for degree of specificity and whether it refers to a structured or unstructured plan. The analyses will commence following the completion of the coding.Acknowledgments: I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Bärbel Knäuper for giving me the incredible opportunity to pursue this project, and for her constant support and encouragement. I also wish to thank Elena Ivanova and Zhen Xu for their continuous guidance and generosity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBehavioral Health and Interventions→French-language works237,207→