How Best to Imagine: Comparing the Effectiveness of Physical Activity Imagery, Possible Self and Combined Interventions on Physical Activity and Related Outcomes
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
Mental imagery and possible-selves interventions can help to improve physical activity (PA) in a variety of populations. Currently, no study has combined these two interventions to test the efficacy or possible synergistic effect. This study investigated the efficacy of a one-time exposure to one of three parallel interventions: imagery, possible selves, and combined, on exercise and self-efficacy, compared to a control group who were given nutritional information as an intervention. One hundred and twelve participants were randomized and provided data at three time points – eligibility screening, post-intervention, and 4-week follow-up. There were no significant group by time interactions or group differences. Main effects for time and exercise showed all participants increased in exercise suggesting that there are no advantages of the interventions. We discuss reasons why this may have occurred and suggest several areas for future researchers to expand upon, including replication with more exposure to interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it