MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Effects of Physical Activity Enjoyment on Sedentary Older Adults' Physical Activity Attitudes and Intentions1

2006· article· en· W2015906670 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, Mary E. Jung, Lawrence R. Brawley, Amy E. Latimer‐Cheung, Audrey L. Hicks, Chris Shields, Neil McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Sedentary behaviorSet (abstract data type)Resistance trainingResistance (ecology)Developmental psychologyGerontologyPhysical therapyMedicineCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study examined the effects of 2 types of acute physical activity bouts on enjoyment and subsequent change in attitudes and intentions regarding physical activity. Participants were 41 sedentary, older men and women (M age = 75.4 years) randomized to a single bout of walking plus either (a) 2 sets of a resistance‐training circuit performed on weight machines (Weights); or (b) 1 set of the resistance circuit plus 1 set of strength‐based activities of daily living (Weights + ADL). The Weights condition enjoyed their bout more, and enjoyment mediated subsequent changes in attitudes. Both conditions increased their physical activity intentions. However, contrary to the tenets of the theory of planned behavior, increased intentions were not mediated by improved attitudes toward physical activity. These findings suggest that single bouts of activity can differentially affect sedentary older adults' thoughts toward being active in their daily lives.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.409 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Biobehavioral ResearchSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207