Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health Promoting Lifestyle (HPL) and Religious Practices: A Comparative StudyHealth Promoting Lifestyle (HPL) and religious practices represent two important dimensions of human behavior, each contributing uniquely to overall well-being.HPL encompasses various actions and habits that foster physical, mental, and emotional health.While religion primarily focuses on spiritual growth, moral guidance, and providing an existential purpose, HPL emphasizes practical, health-oriented activities that enhance physical and mental well-being.This study aimed to compare the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile (HPLP) across different religious groups in Kerala. Methodology:The study sample consisted of 610 participants, including 353 Hindus, 143 Muslims, and 114 Christians, aged between 14 and 19 years.Data were collected using the Health Promoting Lifestyle Profile II (HPLP-II) developed by Walker, Sechrist, and Pender (1987).Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS, employing descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA.Results: Significant differences were found among religious groups in specific HPL dimensions, including Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Interpersonal Relations.However, no significant differences were observed in Health Responsibility, Spiritual Growth, and Stress Management.Hindus exhibited higher levels of physical activity compared to Muslims.Hindus and Christians scored higher in nutrition than Muslims.Hindus demonstrated better interpersonal relations compared to Muslims.These findings highlight variations in health-promoting behaviors across religions, suggesting that cultural and religious practices may influence specific aspects of lifestyle and well-being.9(1)
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".