Does similarity make a difference? Predicting cohesion and attendance behaviors within exercise group settings.
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we assessed the ability of perceptual surface-level (i.e., observable qualities such as age and physical condition) and deep-level (i.e., nonobservable qualities such as attitudes and values) similarity to predict cohesion and attendance within exercise groups. Following the 2nd class of their respective programs, participants (N 273) from 46 registered group-based exercise programs completed perceptual measures of surface-level similarity, deep-level similarity, social cohesion, and task cohesion. Following the 8th class of these programs, attendance data were collected. Perceptions of deep-level similarity were found to predict task cohesion. In contrast, perceptions of surface-level similarity were found to predict social cohesion and program attendance. Taken together, these results suggest that perceptions of surface-level and deep-level similarity may have noteworthy implications for involvement within group-based exercise programs.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it