Health‐Enhancing Physical Activity: Associations with Markers of Well‐Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between health-enhancing physical activity (HEPA) and well-being was investigated across a cross-sectional (Study 1; N=243) and a longitudinal, two-wave (Study 2; N=198) design. Study 2 further examined the role played by fulfilling basic psychological needs in terms of understanding the mechanisms via which HEPA is associated with well-being. METHODS: Women enrolled in undergraduate courses were surveyed. RESULTS: In general, greater HEPA was associated with greater well-being (Study 1; rs ranged from .03 to .25). Change score analyses revealed that increased HEPA positively predicted well-being (Study 2; R(2) adj=0.03 to 0.15) with psychological need fulfilment underpinning this relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these findings indicate that increased engagement in health-enhancing physical activity represents one factor associated with greater well-being. Continued investigation of basic psychological need fulfilment as one mechanism underpinning the HEPA-well-being relationship appears justified.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".