Motivational antecedent beliefs of endurance, strength, and flexibility activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research into the correlates of physical activity has focused almost exclusively on physical activity as an omnibus construct. Health Canada and the American College of Sports Medicine, however, advocate physical activity in terms of performing regular endurance, strength, and flexibility activities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the absolute and relative contributions of behavioral, normative, and control beliefs associated with endurance, strength, and flexibility activities within a theory of planned behavior (TPB) structure. Participants were 185 undergraduates who completed measures of the TPB and a 2-week follow-up of endurance, strength, and flexibility behavior. Results using structural equation modeling and Hotelling's t-tests for dependent correlations identified different motivational antecedents for each type of physical activity (p < .05). Endurance behavior was influenced exclusively by behavioral beliefs, flexibility behavior was influenced by normative and control beliefs, and strength behavior was influenced by key behavioral, normative, and control beliefs. The different motivational profiles for each physical activity allude to the importance of tailoring interventions by physical activity type.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".