Older adults’ preferences for exercising alone versus in groups: Considering contextual congruence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing body of research suggests that older exercisers prefer to exercise alone rather than in group-based settings. One limitation of these studies, however, has been that researchers have failed to take into account the age-related characteristics of groups when asking adults about their preferences for exercise settings. PURPOSE: The overall purpose of this study was to examine the exercise preferences of 947 adults for involvement in standard exercise classes populated by participants from various categories across the age spectrum. RESULTS: The results revealed that when faced with the prospect of exercising with considerably older or younger exercisers, participants found such an exercise context to be largely unappealing. However, in accordance with the basic tenets of self-categorization theory, the results revealed that older and younger adults alike express a positive preference for exercising in standard exercise classes comprised of similarly aged participants. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study challenge a growing call for exercise interventions for older adults to be primarily directed at the individual-level, and suggest that group-related intervention strategies may indeed be attractive to older exercisers.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it