Predicting Changes Across 12 Months in Three Types of Parental Support Behaviors and Mothers’ Perceptions of Child Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental support has been established as the critical family-level variable linked to child physical activity with encouragement, logistical support, and parent-child co-activity as key support behaviors. PURPOSE: This study aims to model these parental support behaviors as well as family demographics as mediators of mothers' perceptions of child physical activity using theory of planned behavior (TPB) across two 6-month waves of longitudinal data. METHOD: A representative sample of Canadian mothers (N = 1253) with children aged 5 to 13 years of age completed measures of TPB, support behaviors, and child physical activity. RESULTS: Autoregressive structural equation models showed that intention and perceived behavioral control explained support behaviors, yet child age (inverse relationship) and family income were independent predictors. The three support behaviors explained 19-42 % of the variance in child physical activity between participants, but analyses of change showed much smaller effects. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers' support behaviors are related to perceived child physical activity, but support is dependent on perception of control, child age, and family income.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".