The Effect of Model Similarity on Exercise Self-Efficacy Among Adults Recovering from a Stroke: A Mixed-Method Single Case Experimental Research Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a mixed-method single-case experimental research design to examine the effect of modelling (peer versus non-peer) on exercise self-efficacy in stroke survivors who participated in a community-based exercise program. Quantitative data were obtained using a ABCA design: (A1) no model/baseline 1 (3 weeks); (B) peer model (6 weeks); (C) non-peer model (6 weeks); and (A2) no model/baseline 2 (3 weeks). Four participants completed self-efficacy questionnaires after each weekly session. Qualitative data were obtained using researcher diaries and two semi-structured interviews: after B and A2. Based on quantitative and qualitative results, participants reported higher exercise self-efficacy in the model conditions, with ratings appearing highest for the non-peer model. This finding could be due to a lack of full integration of the peer model and low feelings of similarity. Modelling in general could help people recovering from a stroke increase their exercise self-efficacy, but non-peer models may not be most advantageous.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".