Should I stay or should I go? Exploring the decision to join, maintain, or cancel a fitness membership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined reasons why people join, maintain, and cancel a fitness membership by following 26 new members to a Canadian fitness centre over a one-year period. Participants were interviewed at three different time points (i.e. new membership purchase, six-month follow-up, and one-year renewal decision). Notable reasons to join included being a role model for children, improving health, and organisation reputation. Reasons to maintain membership included health-related goals, service quality, and organisational culture values. The study found that only 50% renewed their membership after the year. Notable reasons to cancel the membership included the cost, lack of time, interest in other physical activity classes like yoga, outdoor exercise and, most prominently, changes to the family dynamic. The paper discusses the controllable and uncontrollable factors associated with membership maintenance, including service quality, organisational culture, and psychological aspects of the theory of planned behaviour to better understand a person's decision to join, maintain, or cancel membership.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".