University students’ knowledge, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and barriers related to reducing sedentary behavior: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo explore university students’ knowledge, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, barriers and ideas related to reducing sedentary behavior using a qualitative approach. Participants: Nineteen students from a Canadian university participated. Methods: Four focus groups were conducted. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded to identify categories and themes. Results: Some students lacked knowledge of the concept, but most were generally aware of health risks associated with sedentary behavior. Most students were confident they could reduce sedentary behavior, but felt it would be unlikely they would actually do so because: (a) it is not a priority, (b) the health consequences are distal, (c) increasing standing and light-intensity activity would not provide meaningful health benefits, and (d) class schedules/norms/infrastructure encourage sitting and are not under their control to change. Conclusion: Findings from this study may help inform intervention strategies aimed at decreasing excessive sedentary behavior among university students.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".