Application of the Multi‐Process Action Control Framework to Understand Parental Support of Child and Youth Physical Activity, Sleep, and Screen Time Behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper was to apply a framework designed to evaluate the intention-behaviour gap, known as multi-process action control (M-PAC), to understand parental support for the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth. METHOD: Parents (N = 1,208) of children 5-17 years of age, completed measures of reflective (attitudes, perceived control), regulatory (planning), and reflexive (identity, habit) processes as well as intention and support behaviours. RESULTS: Parents had significantly (p < .01) higher intentions in descending order to support sleep (86%), reduce screen time (62%), or support physical activity (65% to 61%). Translation of these intentions into behaviour was also significantly (p < .01) higher in a descending pattern for sleep support (80%), screen time reduction (68%), and physical activity support (56% to 31%). Congruent with M-PAC, a discriminant function analysis of the results showed that the translation of parental support intentions into behaviour was associated with a combination of reflective, regulatory, and reflexive antecedents but these varied by the behaviours. CONCLUSION: The majority of parents have positive intentions to support child and youth health behaviours, yet many fail to enact this support. Translation of intention into action was associated with attitudinal aspects, control over support, self-regulation skills, and parental habits and identity.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".