Affective Judgment and Physical Activity in Youth: Review and Meta-Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent meta-analysis on affective judgment and physical activity in adults yielded a medium effect-sized relationship. Despite narrative reviews and topic interest, a meta-analysis in youth has not yet been conducted. PURPOSE: This study aims to appraise the overall effect of affective judgment on physical activity in youth via meta-analyses and explore moderators of this relationship. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted between 1990 and 2011. Fixed and random effects meta-analysis with correction for sampling, measurement, and publication bias were employed. RESULTS: Fifty-six correlational studies and 14 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Among correlational studies, the corrected summary r was 0.26 (95 % CI 0.18-0.32). Significant moderators were gender, measure of physical activity, and recruitment context. Among intervention studies, Cohen's d was 0.25 (95 % CI 0.11-0.40). CONCLUSIONS: The results are close to a medium effect size which is larger than other meta-analytic physical activity correlates among youth. The construct should be included in our contemporary theories for understanding and intervening upon youth physical activity.
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 | 0.012 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".