MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389565786 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2290865

The Effects of Physical Activity Messages on Physical Activity Support Behaviors and Motivation Among Parents of Children with Disabilities

2023· article· en· W4389565786 on OpenAlexafffund
Victoria Larocca, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Rebecca Bassett‐Gunter

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsModerationPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhysical activityPreferencePopulationPsychosocialSocial psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Persuasive messages can motivate parent support for physical activity (PA). Many PA messages targeting parents are not necessarily inclusive of parents of children with disabilities (CWD). Guided by the theory of planned behavior and multi-process action control model, the relative effects of PA messages were examined among parents of CWD. Parents (N = 135) were randomized to view one of four PA messages. Parent support for PA and various psychosocial antecedents were assessed before and after message viewing, along with message preference. Baseline parent support for PA acted as a moderator on the effects of messages. Effects of messages did not differ between message conditions. Overall message effects were observed for attitudes, subjective norms and planning. Parent support for PA increased only among parents with low baseline parent support and the inclusive message was most preferred. This study can inform the development of PA messages targeting this population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth CommunicationSame topicInclusion and Disability in Education and SportFrench-language works237,207