Analysis of dynamic psychological processes to understand and promote physical activity behaviour using intensive longitudinal methods: a primer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity behaviour displays temporal variability, and is influenced by a range of dynamic psychological processes (e.g., affect) and shaped by various co-occurring events (e.g., social/environmental factors, interpersonal dynamics). Yet, most physical activity research tends not to examine the dynamic psychological processes implicated in adopting and maintaining physical activity. Intensive longitudinal methods (ILM) represent one particularly salient means of studying the complex psychological dynamics that underlie and result from physical activity behaviour. With the increased recent interest in using intensive longitudinal data to understand specific dynamic psychological processes, the field of exercise and health psychology is well-positioned to draw from state-of-the-art measurement and statistical approaches that have been developed and operationalised in other fields of enquiry. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of some of the fundamental dynamic measurement and modelling approaches applicable to the study of physical activity behaviour change, as well as the dynamic psychological processes that contribute to such change.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it