MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Self‐Presentation in Exercise Contexts: Differences Between High and Low Frequency Exercisers

2004· article· en· W2068936061 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Social Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyExpectancy theoryPresentational and representational actingAnxietyImpression managementSocial anxietySelf-efficacyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigated the relationship between cognitive manifestations of self‐presentation (social physique anxiety, self‐presentational efficacy, impression motivation, and exercise imagery) and exercise behavior in 235 female exercisers. Each participant completed the Social Physique Anxiety Scale, a measure of self‐presentational efficacy, the impression motivation subscale of the Self‐Presentation in Exercise Questionnaire, and the Exercise Imagery Questionnaire. The results of a MANCOVA indicated high‐frequency exercisers reported higher levels of efficacy expectancy, outcome value, and exercise imagery than did low‐frequency exercisers. Semi‐partial correlations showed efficacy expectancy, outcome expectancy, and appearance imagery each accounted for significant variance in social physique anxiety, independent of other predictors. Self‐presentational efficacy expectancy appears to be a potent variable in both exercise behavior and social physique anxiety.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.320 · 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