Is the Glass Half‐Full or Half‐Empty? The Relationship of Big and Little Optimism With Acute and Longer Term Exercise‐Related Social Cognitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Big optimism reflects generalized expectations about longer term positive outcomes. Little optimism reflects specific expectations about acute positive outcomes. This study examined the relationships among big optimism, little optimism, and acute (decisional struggle, coping self‐efficacy) and longer term exercise‐related social cognitions (scheduling self‐efficacy, intention). Participants were 85 fitness‐setting exercisers. Measures were obtained concurrently. Regression analyses indicated that, as expected, big optimism predicted the longer term social cognitions and little optimism predicted struggle. Big optimism also predicted coping self‐efficacy and modestly predicted struggle. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that, as expected, big optimists differed from big pessimists on the longer term social cognitions. Groups also differed on coping self‐efficacy. A second MANOVA indicated that, as expected, little optimists differed from little pessimists on the acute social cognitions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".