Group goal setting and group performance in a physical activity context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primary purpose was to examine the relationship between group goal setting and group performance in an exercise setting. The secondary purpose was to determine whether cohesion, self‐efficacy, and physical activity level influenced the magnitude of the group‐goal/group‐performance relationship. The sample consisted of 6,356 participants (N = 1,325 groups) who were registered for an 8‐week walking program. Results revealed a positive and significant relationship between group goal setting and group performance. Analyses also showed that cohesion was not a moderator while physical activity level and self‐efficacy were; the strength of the relationship between group goal setting and group performance was enhanced as the group average for self‐efficacy and physical activity increased. Further analyses revealed that physical activity level and self‐efficacy interacted in a conjunctive manner to influence the group‐goal/group‐performance relationship; groups high in physical activity and self‐efficacy showed a stronger relationship than groups with other combinations of the two
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".