Psychosocial Determinants of Lyme Disease Preventive Behavior Among Outdoor Recreationists
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
The incidence of Lyme disease (LD) has grown over time despite extensive awareness campaigns of disease risk. While previous research has explored public knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes toward tick-borne diseases, there is minimal research in understanding preventive behavior among individuals frequently engaging in outdoor recreation. This study addresses this gap by investigating the perceptions of LD preventive behavior, focusing on psychosocial factors influencing behavior. Utilizing an integrative framework incorporating the Health Belief Model and Social Cognitive Theory, we examined outdoor recreationist performance of three key preventive behaviors: tick checks, tick repellent use, and protective clothing. Data were collected through intercept surveys at Bradbury Mountain State Park (Maine, US). Findings indicate that tick-related knowledge and experience have a limited impact on preventive behavior, while efficacy beliefs and perceived benefits significantly influence behavior. In this paper we discuss the implications of these factors to both theory and practice in LD prevention studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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