The role of partner autonomy support in motivation, well-being, and weight loss among women with higher baseline BMI.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: ). METHOD: In Study 1, autonomy support was measured as male partners' report of their behavior in a cross-sectional design. In Study 2, autonomy support was measured as female participants' perceptions of their partners' behavior in a longitudinal home environment-based behavioral weight loss intervention. RESULTS: Study 1 showed that autonomy support from partners was associated with greater self-determined motivation for healthy eating and self-reported well-being among women with higher BMI. Study 2 showed that changes in partner autonomy support over 18 months of a home-based weight loss intervention were associated with increases in motivation for treatment and greater weight loss, especially for women who had higher baseline BMI. DISCUSSION: Both studies demonstrated that autonomy support was associated with adaptive functioning across weight status but that it was especially potent for women with higher BMI. This pattern of findings is explained in terms of the pressures women with higher BMI may feel about their weight-related behaviors. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".