MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1500120533 · doi:10.1111/jabr.12024

Non‐Participation: How Age Influences Inactive Women's Views of Exercise

2014· article· en· W1500120533 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WinnipegWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingVariety (cybernetics)PsychologyPromotion (chess)GerontologyPerceptionCognitionPhysical activityFocus groupDevelopmental psychologyMedicineSocial psychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryPoliticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Physical activity studies have often excluded women, resulting in limited information regarding the influences on women's non‐participation. The present study aimed to explore the exercise views and cognitions of inactive adult women. Forty women aged 25–75 took part in the focus groups. Themes that emerged from the interviews included merits of exercise, thoughts and feelings, knowledge, barriers, and strategies. Results indicated that inactivity is due to a variety of culminating factors; health‐promotion strategies need to specifically target different age groups. These strategies include increasing awareness of the social and psychological benefits of exercise, exercise as a supplement to activities of daily living, changing the perception of what constitutes exercise, and representing exercisers as a variety of ages and body shapes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it