The impact of action plans on habit and intention strength for physical activity in a web-based intervention: is it the thought that counts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Action planning is a common approach used in physical activity interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the association of frequency, consistency and content of action planning with physical activity behaviour, intention strength and habit strength. METHODS AND MEASURES: age =43.9; range = 22-73 years) could create 6 rounds of action plans for 4 activities each (24 total). RESULTS: Consistency of action planning during the intervention was associated with change in physical activity at 9-months, and intention and habit strength at 3-months and 9-months. Frequency of action planning was negatively associated with intention at 3-months and 9-months. The effect of action planning consistency on physical activity behaviour was no longer significant when accounting for change in intention and habit strength. CONCLUSION: Consistency of how, where, when and with whom people plan their physical activity may translate into stronger physical activity habits. Interventions should avoid encouraging making many distinct action plans, but rather encourage stable contexts through consistent action planning.
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) | 0.000 | 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".