The Relationship Between Goal Orientation and Self‐Efficacy for Exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined exercisers' motivational profiles and investigated whether different combinations of task and ego orientation would reflect different levels of coping and task self‐efficacy. Male ( n = 106) and female ( n = 174) exercisers were administered an exercise version of the Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire (Duda & Nicholls, 1992) and an instrument measuring coping and task self‐efficacy. The results of a K‐means cluster analysis on the questionnaire scores resulted in a 5‐cluster solution that maximized between‐group differences and minimized within‐group differences. A MANOVA indicated that the different cluster groups could be distinguished by their coping and task self‐efficacy. More specifically, exercisers with high levels of task orientation, regardless of their corresponding levels of ego orientation, were characterized by having higher levels of self‐efficacy than exercisers with low levels of task orientation combined with low to high levels of ego orientation.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".