Understanding motivation for exercise: A self-determination theory perspective.
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.518
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 1.000
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Understanding the factors that motivate health-enhancing physical activity has considerable merit given the role of this lifestyle behaviour in combating disease and promoting quality of life. The purpose of this article is to provide a broad overview of research investigating participation issues in exercise from the perspective of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Evidence informing the application of SDT to the study of motivational issues in exercise is reviewed around three central questions: (a) Does the quality of motivation regulating exercise behaviour “matter”?, (b) How important are basic psychological needs within exercise contexts?, and (c) Can contextual variables be manipulated to create adaptive environments for exercise? The available evidence is supportive of many propositions set forth within SDT by Deci and Ryan’s (2002). Future avenues for exercise motivation research are offered based on the available evidence with a view to addressing unresolved issues and advancing SDT’s development.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne
- Topic
- Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Field
- Psychology
- Canadian institutions
- Brock University
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Keywords
- Deci-Perspective (graphical)Self-determination theoryPsychologyGoal theoryIntrinsic motivationSet (abstract data type)Applied psychologyPhysical activitySocial psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyComputer scienceAutonomy
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes