What physical activity messages to people attend to, prefer, and evaluate more favourably?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity promotion messages have received increasing empirical attention over the last decade, and despite contributions to the literature, researchers have advocated a need to utilize a more complex approach. The Comprehensive Messaging Strategy for Sustained Behavior Change (CMSSBC) is a recently conceptualized approach to messaging that may be a promising alternative to understanding how to effectively deliver physical activity promotion messages. This approach recommends that messages be tailored to the recipients stage of change (detection, decision, implementation, or maintenance stage), yet framed intrinsically, following a Self-Determination Theory conceptualization. This research served as a preliminary study designed to test participants' preferences for, attention to, and evaluation of physical activity promotion messages guided by the CMSSBC. Participants included 81 male, 211 female, and 1 transgender adult(s), aged 19 – 65 (Mage = 29.06), with BMI's that ranged from 17.22 to 52.45 (M = 25.53), and on average reported engaging in 37.02 METs of moderate to vigorous leisure-time physical activity. This cross-sectional study required participants to complete a demographic section, questions about their stage of change, motives, and goals for physical activity, and to evaluate eight physical activity promotion messages that were tailored to one of the stages of change and framed either intrinsically or extrinsically. The results of the study findings indicated that participants in general preferred the intrinsically framed messages as opposed to the extrinsically framed equivalent messages, and reported notable aversive reactions to the extrinsic messages, in particular the images.Acknowledgments: Funded by the University of Lethbridge Research Fund
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".