Examining the Relationships among Concepts of Control and Exercise Attendance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many researchers in psychology and physical activity have discussed the overlap among control constructs in various theories. Skinner (1996) proposed an integrative control framework based on an agent-means-ends distinction that offered comparisons among and more explicit measurement of 3 control constructs—control, capacity, and strategy beliefs. No study in the exercise domain has yet empirically examined these advantages. This study evaluated Skinner’s framework relative to their contribution to predicting exercise attendance. A prospective design was used to consider the potential change in the nature of the relationships. High correlations (range r = .52–.88) at 2 time points in the exercise program suggested overlap among control constructs when using Skinner’s measurement procedures. Only capacity beliefs and behavioral intention were significantly related to exercise attendance (model R 2 adjusted = .11 and .16, p = .03 and .01, respectively, at onset and midprogram).Adjusted The findings do not support Skinner’s contentions but are similar to previous findings in the exercise literature.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".