Examining Model Similarity for Exercise Self-Efficacy among Adults Recovering from a Stroke: A Community-Based Exercise Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a 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. Data were obtained using an 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. Overall, participants reported higher exercise self-efficacy in the model conditions (Cohen’s d range from −0.37 to 4.22), with ratings appearing highest for the non-peer model. Modelling in general may help stroke survivors increase their exercise self-efficacy. Lastly, we provide our reflections on the pragmatics of completing a study within a community setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".