MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050384607 · doi:10.1080/08870440903111696

Application of the limited strength model of self-regulation to understanding exercise effort, planning and adherence

2009· article· en· W2050384607 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen A. Martin Ginis, Steven R. Bray

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology and Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral Health and Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEgo depletionPsychologyTask (project management)Self-controlResource (disambiguation)Theory of planned behaviorResource depletionControl (management)Social psychologyEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The limited strength model posits that self-regulatory strength is a finite, renewable resource that is drained when people attempt to regulate their emotions, thoughts or behaviours. The purpose of this study was to determine whether self-regulatory depletion can explain lapses in exercise effort, planning and adherence. In a lab-based experiment, participants exposed to a self-regulatory depletion manipulation generated lower levels of work during a 10 min bicycling task, and planned to exert less effort during an upcoming exercise bout, compared with control participants. The magnitude of reduction in planned exercise effort predicted exercise adherence over a subsequent 8-week period. Together, these results suggest that self-regulatory depletion can influence exercise effort, planning and decision-making and that the depletion of self-regulatory resources can explain episodes of exercise non-adherence both in the lab and in everyday life.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations118
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology and HealthSame topicBehavioral Health and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207