MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094115001 · doi:10.1080/14927713.2009.9651453

Physical activity participation constraints among athletic trainers: A profession based assessment

2009· article· en· W2094115001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Megha Budruk, Leslie Cowen, Carlton F. Yoshioka, Pamela Hodges Kulinna

Bibliographic record

VenueLeisure/Loisir · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityPsychologyVariance (accounting)Multilevel modelSample (material)CertificationGerontologySocial psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyPolitical scienceMathematicsStatisticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite well‐documented health benefits, physical activity participation rates remain low. Leisure constraints theory can provide insights into understanding non‐participation in physical activity. One hundred fifty‐three certified athletic trainers from the U.S. Big‐10 and PAC‐10 conferences were surveyed to understand physical activity participation and leisure constraints among this group. Hierarchical regression analysis was performed to examine the effect of gender, age and leisure constraints on physical activity participation. Findings suggest less than ideal physical activity participation, some level of dissatisfaction with physical activity participation, and high mean Body Mass Index level (BMI) among the sample. Although structural constraints significantly and negatively predicted actual physical activity participation, the leisure constraints model did not explain the variance in physical activity participation. Athletic trainers are trained to be physically fit, maintain healthy lifestyles and reduce constraints for other, but ultimately may sacrifice their own health in the process.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.341 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeisure/LoisirSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207